Walgreens gives wrong drug, patient dies.

By: Dev Sethi

The estate of Mary Moore of Louisville, Kentucky filed a suit alleging the pharmacy at Walgreens gave her the wrong drug. She was given an antihistamine Hydroxyzine instead of Hydralazine, a high blood pressure medication. Moore had been hospitalized in the past with high blood pressure, congestive heart failure and kidney failure.

The suit alleges that Hydroxyzine causes confusion and sedation in the elderly. The suit alleges that Ms. Moore was not given counseling, which would have prevented the mix up from happening. The dispensing of the wrong drug caused Ms. Moore's hypertension to go untreated and she was hospitalized and died quickly thereafter. After about two weeks of taking the wrong medication, the pharmacy substituted the right medication. By then, it was too late.

The suit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. 

Kinerk, Schmidt & Sethi  handles these types of cases, and have successfully won verdicts for our clients. Please call us at 1-866-538-8420 if you or someone you know has been affected. 

$8 million verdict for nursing home

By: Matt Schmidt


$8 million was awarded in damages to the estate of a retired surgeon. Dr. David Griffin died after his legs were broken in a transfer from a chair to his bed, when under the care of Treyton Oak Towers in Louisville.

His attorney says that Griffin's legs were broken in the September 2008 incident where the employees were ordered to change the medical record and cover the incident up. Griffin's suit claims he had severe osteoporosis and doctors failed to notify caretakers of this condition.

The nursing home denies abuse and plans to appeal.

Kinerk, Schmidt & Sethi handles these types of elder abuse cases. Please do not hesitate to contact us.

Evidence—Medical Malpractice Expert Must be Board Certified Specialist not Subspecialist

By: Ted Schmidt

Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, __Ariz. Adv. Rep. __, 2 CA-CV 2011-0080 (App. Div. II, February 22, 2012) (J. Howard)

IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS PLAINTIFF MUST HAVE EXPERT HOLDING THE SAME ABMS BOARD CERTIFIED SPECIALTY AS THE DEFENDANT;HOLDING THE SAME SUBSPECIALTY WILL NOT SUFFICE

Plaintiff’s daughter died due to blood clots allegedly negligently treated by the defendant doctor.  The defendant was board certified in pediatrics with a subspecialty in pediatric hematology/oncology.  Plaintiffs’ expert on the other hand, is board certified in internal medicine with subspecialties of oncology and hematology.  Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based upon the fact plaintiffs’ expert was not board certified in the same specialty as him was granted by the trial court. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.

The court first addressed the applicable statute—ARS sec. 12-2604 which requires the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action file an affidavit signed by a doctor in the same “specialty” as the defendant establishing a breach of the standard of care.  The court found the statute ambiguous because it failed to define “specialist.”  Plaintiffs argued that the specialty at issue here was hematology and their expert was board certified in that field.  The defendant argued that he was board certified in pediatrics and that was the specialty plaintiffs’ expert must hold. The court found that because the American Board of Medical Specialties [ABMS]  lists 24 different specialties the legislature must have intended those specialties to apply.  While pediatrics is one of the listed specialties, hematology is not (rather hematology is a “subspecialty”).  Because the statute specifies that plaintiffs’ doctor must be of the same “specialty” and not “subspecialty” plaintiffs’ doctor here must be certified in pediatrics and need not hold the subspecialty of hematology (even though the heart of the alleged malpractice was squarely within the realm of hematology).

The court acknowledged that Division I of the court of appeals had previously used the dictionary definition for “specialty” and not the ABMS definition chosen by the court here.  Awsienko v. Cohen, 227 Ariz. 256, 257 P.3d 175  (App. 2011).  The court allowed that in Awsienko the issue was when the doctor had to hold the specialty and therefore the definition chosen was mere dictum.

Finally, the court rejected all the constitutional challenges to the statute raised by the plaintiff.

Do I Have A Tucson Medical Malpractice Case? Part One: Standard of Care

By: James Campbell -- Tucson Medical Malpractice Attorney

Frequently, I get a call from a new potential Tucson or Arizona client, and one of the first things from their mouth is, "Do I have a malpractice case?"  Frustratingly for the prospective Tucson client, I inevitably reply, "It depends."

Unfortunately, it is very rare for me to be able to tell a potential client during an initial interview if they have a case for malpractice.  Here is why.  Arizona lawyers must prove three things to win a case of malpractice.  Lawyers call these three things: breach of the standard of care, causation, and damages. This and several other blog posts will talk about these three elements.

First, the doctor must have acted unreasonably.  That is judged by what other doctors of that type or specialty would do under the circumstances.  In lawyer speak, we call this whether the doctor met the "standard of care."  Most of the time, I, as a lawyer, don't know what a doctor would do under the circumstances.  That is, I don't know the standard of care.  For example, I don't know what a reasonable obstetrician would do when her patient has a suspicious breast lump that shows up on a mammogram.  I don't know this because I did not go to medical school, and I have not treated women with breast lumps.  (Actually, I do know this one because I have handled this type of case many times, but lets pretend I don't!)  So, I have to get the potential clients medical records and  talk with a doctor in the same field as the potential defendant, in this case a gynecologist, and ask him or her what should be done in this circumstance.  This doctor is called an expert witness.  An expert witness is necessary to tell a lawyer whether the treating doctor met the standard of care.

In many cases, this is the end of the evaluation. This is because, most of the time, the treating doctor did not commit malpractice.  Rather, a bad outcome, in most occasions, happened because medicine is still a very complex science.  Much more times than not, something unpredictable occurred.  That is not malpractice. So, when the expert doctor reviews the patient's records and tells me that the treating doctor did not act unreasonably, but this is an unfortunate complication that sometimes occurs, then I have the tough job of calling the client and explaining this to them.  (More on these conversations in another blog post.)

Other times, the expert doctor reviews the medical records tells me, "Well I would not have done it this way, but this was a judgment call."   This is the other tough thing about malpractice cases. Often what a reasonable doctor would do is not cut and dry.  It is not written down in a book.  There is a range of how a reasonable doctor should act.  Often, I am told that what the treating doctor did in this particular case is acceptable, but there are better ways to go.  These are the really hard cases to tell the potential client. It is always hard to tell someone that, well, your doctor did not do what was absolutely best, but it was good enough under the standards of the profession.  That is a tough pill for somebody who has been injured to swallow.

In a rare case, the expert will tell me that the standard of care requires certain action, and the treating doctor did not do what was required.  That is malpractice.  For example, in our example about woman with a breast lump that shows up on mammogram, the standard of care requires some sort of follow up: a repeat mammogram in a short period of time, more imaging studies (like an MRI), or a fine needle biopsy.  If the doctor did not take these steps, then, likely, he or she acted unreasonably.  Put in legal terms, this doctor did not meet the standard of care.

These types of issues come up in many types of medical care.  For example diagnosis of cancer, treatment of emergency illnesses, infections, strokes, heart conditions, deliveries of babies, or bone injures are common areas of concern.  But, for each different type of medical issue, the process starts with the same question, "did the doctor act unreasonably?"

If the answer to this question is, "yes,"  then, I as a lawyer, move on to analyze the issues of causation and damages.  I will write about these subjects in a later blog.

If you think you have been injured as a result of the malpractice of a Tucson or Arizona doctor, please contact us.  We have successfully handled the most complex medical malpractice cases, and we can tell you whether you have a malpractice case.  The consultation is free, and we understand the how difficult it is to take this step when a doctor you trusted caused harm.

By: James Campbell -- Tucson Medical Malpractice Attorney

Arizona Personal Injury Law - Are You The Suing Type?

By: Ted Schmidt 

I have been a personal injury lawyer in Arizona for 30 years.  Every now and then when I talk to a potential client they will say something like, "I'm not sure if I want to go through with this.  I'm not really the suing type."

I've been fortunate enough to represent more than 2,000 families in my 30 years as an attorney.  I've gotten to know hundreds of other families through volunteering as a coach in the Tucson Soccer Academy and Angel Children's Charity.  Of all these people, I've never met someone that is the "suing type."

We've all seen stories in the paper of people that appear to be filing bogus lawsuits.  My firm would never take on a case like that and I think for the most part people like that are few and far between.  My clients that are looking for a Tucson car accident attorney would much rather be healthy than calling me after having suffered a broken leg because someone ran a red light and hit them.

I think that some cheesy law firms give the public a bad feeling about hiring a lawyer because of their cheesy ads that are focused on nothing other than money for the client.  If we represent you, we of course want to get you the most that we can and we have a track record of success that shows that.  But when my firm takes on a new client, we are also concerned about your health and helping you get back to the best life you can live.

We don't represent people that are the suing type and you shouldn't worry about people thinking that of you.  We do help honest, innocent victims of negligence that need us in their corner and while we never promise a result, we do guarantee that you will be proud of how we approach the handling of your case.  

If you have questions about your possible case or just want a confidential, no cost consultation with an injury attorney, please don't ever hesitate to contact me at 1-866-538-8420. 

Criminal Procedure—DUI Arrest & Right to Counsel

By: Jim Campbell

State v. Penny, 627 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4 (App. Div. I, January 31, 2012) (J. ) 

DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN PROVIDED PHONE AND YELLOW PAGES WITH ATTYS’ SECTION TORN OUT

Defendant had been drinking and crashed into a house and flees the scene.  The police ultimately arrest him at his house. He asks to talk to a lawyer.  They put him in a room with a phone and the yellow pages but the attorney section of the yellow pages had been torn out.  He complained about this but the police refused to assist him further in contacting a lawyer.

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that this was a clear violation of the defendant’s right to counsel and as such the charges against the defendant were properly dismissed with prejudice under the exclusionary rule.

Tucson Medical Malpractice: The Reality Of How Difficult It Is To Prove A Case

By: James D. Campbell -- Tucson Medical Malpractice Attorney

The average Joe sitting in his armchair thinks that medical malpractice cases are a problem. There are too many of them and doctors can't practice medicine because insurance costs are driving them out of the business.  I AM HERE TO TELL YOU THIS IS NOT THE TRUTH.

It is really difficult to prove a medical malpractice case. Before a medical malpractice case can get to first base, a doctor of the same type as the defendant doctor must be willing to testify that his brother doctor acted unreasonably.  It is not easy to find a doctor to do this.   Many, many doctor refuse to get involved in cases against other doctors.  Before a lawyer can find one qualified doctor to testify against another doctor, he or she will have to invest many hours on the computer researching doctors and additional hours on the phone calling doctors to see if they will even review the medical records to see if there was malpractice.

Certainly no Tucson doctor is going to testify against another Tucson doctor.  In fact, usually, no Arizona doctor will testify in a malpractice case against another Arizona doctor. The patient must seek out doctors from other states to come to Arizona to testify in a malpractice case.

Then, if a lawyer gets fortunate, and an out of state doctor agrees to testify against an Arizona doctor, then the lawyer and his client must go do battle with the insurance company for the doctor.  The doctor's insurance company has near limitless resources.  It, unlike an individual injured person, takes a very long range view of malpractice cases. It long range plan is to make proving malpractice cases as hard as possible, so that lawyers will think two, three and four times before agreeing to take on a case.  So, while your client has been injured and simply wants justice, the insurance company is already looking past this case to the next 100.

Medical Malpractice Cases Are A Steep Climb

Finally, if a medical malpractice case goes to trial, the doctor wins well over 90 percent of the time. There are a lot of reason for this, but the main one is that juries find it very hard to fault a doctor. Jurors grew up respecting and trusting doctors.  This built in bias makes the playing field not level for the injured person.  The injured patient has a very hard time convincing that the doctor made a mistake, and caused his harm.  So, while the law only requires that it be shown that the doctor acted unreasonably, the reality is different.  In reality, to prove a malpractice case, an in injured person must not only prove that the doctor was negligent, but was very negligent.  While this is not the law, this is the reality of what most juries require before they will compensate an injured patient.

Because of this, the filings of medical malpractice cases in Arizona has fallen over 40% in the last few years.  THAT'S RIGHT.  MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES ARE DECLINING, NOT INCREASING.

As a result of all of the above, only very few medical malpractice cases are ever filed.  As I lawyer, I get contacted at least 5 times a week about a new potential case.  Because I know how hard it is for my client to prevail in a Tucson medical malpractice case, I take less than 1 out of 50 cases.  So, you can be guaranteed the 1 case that is filed, is a really strong case where the doctor made a serious mistake, and that mistake caused grievous injury or death to the patient. I am not  unique in this view, as most Tucson and Arizona medical malpractice lawyers are equally careful about the cases they pursue.

So, the next time you hear about the "medical malpractice crisis," you know this simply is not the truth.  Don't let any lobby for the doctor's insurance company take away YOUR rights to fair compensation if you are injured by the malpractice of a doctor.

If you have been injured as a result of the medical malpractice of a Tucson or Arizona doctor, please feel free to contact me.  I have the experience in handling serious medical malpractice cases, and I understand how difficult it can be to make a claim against a doctor that you trusted with your care. The consultation is free.

By: James D. Campbell -- Tucson Medical Malpractice Attorney

Civil Procedure—Default Judgment Void Where Defendant Appears & No Hearing

By: Matt Schmidt

BYS Inc. v. Smoudi, 627 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 16 (App. Div. I, February 9, 2012) (J. Orozco)

WHERE DEFENDANT APPEARS AFTER NOTICE OF DEFAULT BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT AND NO HEARING HELD DEFAULT JUDGMENT VOID

Plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of a lease agreement. The defendant did not timely answer and the plaintiff properly filed a Notice of Default and Sought a Default Judgment.  However before the judgment was entered  the defendant filed a document entitled “Application for Default Entry of Default, Request for Time Extension” with the court claiming it had been given an extension to answer by the plaintiff  and was attempting to negotiate a settlement.  The default judgment was later issued without a hearing because the default was for a sum certain.  The Arizona Court of Appeals voided the default judgment finding that once the defendant made an “appearance” in the case the judgment could not be entered without notice and a hearing on the damages.See Ariz Rule of Civ Pro 55(b)(2).

Torts—Course & Scope of Employment Includes Refreshment Break

By: Ted Schmidt

Higginbotham v. AN Motors of Scottsdale, 627 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 11 (App. Div. I, February 2, 2012) (J. Swann)

DELIVERY DRIVER ON PERSONAL ERRAND DURING DELIVERY MAY BE W/IN COURSE & SCOPE

Plaintiffs’ decedent was a pedestrian run over and killed by the defendant driver.  The trial court granted the driver’s employer summary judgment finding the accident occurred at a time his employer had no control over him and therefore outside the course and scope of his employment. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed finding a question of fact existed regarding the question of the employer’s vicarious liability.

The defendant driver was an automobile parts delivery driver. He made three deliveries for his employer every morning and in between deliveries was permitted “free time” to seek refreshment or run personal errands, but he was required to finish the three deliveries every morning ending up back at his employer’s shop and was paid the same salary regardless of what the deliveries entailed or how long they took. At the time he hit the decedent he was transporting a fender from a body shop back to his employer but was first going home to pick up some cigarettes.  This the court of appeals created a question of fact as to whether the driver was employed throughout the morning or only during the times he was making a delivery.

Falling TVs Are a Serious Danger To Young Children

By: James Campbell

Children are injured at an alarming rate by falling televisions and furniture.  The Consumer Product Safety Commission says 169 children 8 and younger died between 2000 and 2010 from falling TVs. In all, 245 children died in that period after being crushed by TVs, furniture or appliances. More than 22,000 were treated for tip-over injuries each year from 2008 to 2010. 


The saddest part of this story is that these injuries are preventable. First, parents should use stands that are bit and sturdy enough to support the TV, and they should have no drawers to for a little one to stand on.  Also, safety straps are available to fasten the TV to the wall. TV Safety Strap.  These same straps should be used with dressers to prevent them from falling over on children.  Furniture Safety Strap.  


If you or your loved one has been seriously injured in an accident or by a defective product, the Tucson based lawyers of Kinerk, Schmidt and Sethi can help. We have successfully represented many injured Tucson and Arizona clients.  Please contact us. 

$2 million awarded in wrongful death suit

By: Ted Schmidt

A civil jury recently awarded $2 million dollars to the family of 21 year old Joey Pinasco, in a lawsuit against two California Highway Patrol officers who shot and killed him.

Officers Steve Coffman and Mike Walling encountered Pinasco in the early morning hours of August 24th in 2008. As the officers approached Pinasco in his pickup truck, Pinasco took off and a short pursuit ensued.

Pinasco's vehicle spun out of control and got stuck near a ditch, and when the patrol officers pulled over in front of him, Pinasco's car moved forward toward the left of the officers. This is when the patrol officers shot at Pinasco.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/02/05/2057143/chp-loses-2m-lawsuit.html#storylink=cpy

Apartment Security Cop Could Have Prevented Murder

By: Matt Schmidt

The family of slain MTSU basketball star Tina Stewart alleges that Raiders Crossing Apartments and its management company was negligent in getting the police involved when an off sduty police officer found out Madden, Tina's roommate was smoking marijuana in the off-campus apartment she shared with Stewart.

Jensen, the off duty police officer visited the apartment and discovered marijuana in Madden’s possession. He left the apartment after telling Madden to flush the marijuana down a toilet, the suit alleges.

Stewart’s family alleges that Jensen, was negligent when he failed to contact police about Madden’s drug use. The family claims had Jensen notified law enforcement authorities about the illegal drug use, he would have remained in the apartment and this would not have allowed Ms. Madden to have killed Tina Stewart.

Cincinnati bus company pays $5M, settles death suit

By: Dev Sethi


$5 million was awarded to settle a wrongful death suit. The Missouri cause alleged that a 23-year-old First Student bus driver failed to defrost or scrape the bus’ windshield. This caused the driver to inadverdently drive the bus over a 16-year-old who was legally crossing the street. This incident occurred in St. Joseph, Mo., on Nov. 15, 2010. The driver killed Mason Adams, a high school junior.

First Student, the bus company refused to admit its role in the death– until Monday. The bus’ video captured the incident the driver’s failure to defrost the windshield which left him unable to see the teen crossing in front of the bus in a crosswalk and legally with the light. First Student agreed to pay the victim's mother a $5 million settlement. They also agreed to apologize and to admit the company’s role in her son’s death and allow her to help its drivers learn from this case.

Doctors Often Don't Tell You About Their Medical Malpractice

By:  James Campbell

A recent survey of almost 2000 physicians revealed that approximately one-third of all physicians did not completely agree with the concept that they should disclose a serious medical error to the patient. This means, that these physicians do not believe it is necessary when their patient has been the victim of a serious medical error.  This certainly is an issue in Tucson, Arizona, as it is nationwide.

Unfortunately, medical errors and medical malpractice are all too common. One important way that errors are corrected is for doctors and nurses is to be honest with their patients.  Many Tucson doctors are careful to discuss their mistakes with their patients, but too often, they do not.  Frank conversations allows the doctor and the patient to learn from the medical mistake or malpractice  and move forward with their lives.

Also, it is very important that any person that is undergoing medical care have an advocate to speak on their behalf.  A watchful eye is imperative to prevent medical errors or medical malpractice.  When your loved one is getting care, especially in a Tucson hospital environment, they need someone to ask the types of questions that they are not able to ask for themselves. Such as, "what do you think is wrong with John?" "What is the next step to find out what is wrong or to fix what is wrong?" "When will this procedure be done?" and "When will we know the results of that procedure?" These types of questions are very important, and must be asked on a regular basis of your health care providers. Yes, your doctors and nurses will be irritated that you are asking these questions, but you still must do it.

The lawyers at Kinerk, Schmidt, and Sethi are experienced in handling serious medical malpractice cases on behalf of their Tucson and Arizona clients.  If you have been injured as a result of medical malpractice, please contact us.

Civil Procedure—Good Cause Required to Excuse Delay Disclosing Expert on Appeal From Mandatory Arbitration

Cosper v. Mora, __Ariz. Adv. Rep. __, CV-11-0083-PR (February 6, 2012) (J. Brutinel)

ARIZONA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 77(g)(1)&(4) REQUIRE FILING LIST OF WITNESSES & EXHIBITS SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH APPEAL FROM ARBITRATION         AND A LATER DISCLOSURE IS ALLOWED ONLY FOR “GOOD CAUSE” SHOWN

Plaintiff sued defendant for damages in a car crash.  The day after an award was entered for plaintiff in compulsory arbitration the defendant filed a notice of appeal along with a list of witnesses and exhibits and asking for a trial de novo. Two months later the defendant filed a supplemental disclosure revealing a biomechanist he intended to call at trial along with the expert’s report.

Plaintiff moved to strike the new witness on the grounds no “good cause” had been shown for the late disclosure under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 77 (g)(4).  The trial court granted the motion. Defendant took a special action to the Arizona Court of Appeals  which reversed citing rules 26 through 37 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure for the proposition the defendant need not show good cause for any disclosure of new witnesses filed up to 80 days prior to trial. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.

The supreme court held that because rule 77 specifically governs appeals from compulsory arbitration and rules 26-37 governed all civil proceedings generally, the specific rule would control over the general.  While rules 26-37 allow discovery and disclosure up to 80 days prior to trial without regard to cause, rule 77 specifically, clearly and unambiguously requires disclosure of witnesses and exhibits simultaneously with the notice of appeal from arbitration and only allows supplementation upon a showing of good cause, which was not shown here. 

Control -- The Real Reason Behind Electronic Medical Records

By:  James Campbell

The medical world is shifting from paper medical charts, to electronic medical records (EMR for shorthand).  The government is pushing EMR to attempt to improve health care to reduce medical malpractice through lessening medication errors, and prompting doctors and nurses to practice safe medicine. Tucson, Arizona hospitals and doctors are in the midst of this transition.

Doctors, for the most part, are not in favor of this shift. Instead of talking directly with their patients, they have to now interface with a computer to check boxes and fill in blanks.  This makes their visits with their patients less personal and less productive.

In addition to efforts to reduce medical malpractice, one main reason behind this push to move to EMR is control.  The hospitals and insurance companies can exercise direct control over a doctor through the EMR system. It is simple, they just remove a box that allows a doctor to order an expensive test or medicine.  This, without any fuss or recourse, forces a doctor to make another, less expensive, choice about treatment for his patient. This is one of the real, dangerous reasons why the government is pushing for EMR so strongly.  Beware and be forewarned.

If you have concerns about the medical care you have received, please feel free to contact us.  We have extensive experience in evaluating and prosecuting medical malpractice cases in Tucson throughout the state of Arizona.

We want to hear your story: Has CRC failed to provide you with reasonable care?

By: James Campbell

Addiction and mental health disorders affect the lives of millions of Americans. It is estimated that expenditures of treatment of substance abuse and mental health care approaches $35 billion a year. Many providers of treatment operate on a for profit basis, and CRC Health is the nation’s largest single provider of for profit addiction recovery and mental health care services. CRC operates over 100 inpatient and outpatient facilities in 21 states with 2010 revenues approaching half a billion dollars. CRC is a corporation wholly owned and controlled by Bain Capital.

Sierra Tucson, located outside of Tucson, AZ, is one of CRC’s premier facilities, accounting for 10% of CRC’s annual revenue. However, in recent years Sierra Tucson has been the subject lawsuits and state regulator’s investigations and sanctions. The common theme has been Sierra Tucson’s failure to adequately care for and supervise it’s patients. Most recently, the State of Arizona fined Sierra Tucson and put it on a probationary license for failures related to the disappearance and death of a patient named Kenneth Litwack. You can read more about Dr. Litwack’s death here.

Nationwide, CRC facilities have come under scrutiny for failure to provide reasonable patient care. Deaths and serious injuries at their facilities have triggered investigation.

We represent individuals and families who suffer as a result of CRC, and its facilities’ failures. If you have questions about your experience with CRC or any of its facilities, such as Sierra Tucson, where Dr. Litwack was being treated, or have a story to tell, we would appreciate hearing from you. Your story may help someone.

Infant Rattles Recalled

By: Jim Campbell

Approximately 25,000 Infant Rattles have been recalled. They were manufactured by Lee Carter Company in Mexico. They sold for approximately $4 at various Mexican specialty craft stores nationwide from February 2001 through October 2011.

The units have been recalled due to the handle being small enough to fit into a child's throat, posing a choking hazard. It also violates federal rattle standards.

The recalled rattles are made out of woven plastic and rattles due to the bell inside.  Each unit measures about 4 1/2 inches long. "Made in Mexico" and "Lee Carter Company" are printed on a tag, found on a purple plastic loop at the end of the rattle's handle.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled rattles away from infants and return them to Lee Carter Co. for a full refund or credit towards a replacement product.

Oregon® Replacement Lawnmower Blades Recalled

By: Ted Schmidt

Blount International Inc., of Kansas City, Mo. announced a voluntary recall of approximately 950 replacement blades used in the Ariens 48 inch lawmowers. Because these blades can break during normal use, it poses a laceration hazard by the user and even bystanders. Seven reports have been reported to have broken, but no injuries have been reported. The replacement blades are sold under the Oregon® brand name. "Oregon®," part number "91-003" and "PA" or "PJ" are printed on the surface of the recalled blades. These units have been sold at independent lawn and garden sales and service stores nationwide from January 2010 through September 2011. They cost approximately $20.Consumers should immediately stop using lawnmowers with the recalled blades and return the blades to the store where purchased or directly to Blount for a free replacement.

SawStop - World's Safest Table Saw

By: Matt Schmidt

SawStop is a revolutionary table saw. They explain how their product works in three simple steps:

1. SawStop detects contact with skin.
The blade they use carries a small electrical signal. This signal is monitored by the safety system.When the skin comes in contact with the blade, the signal then changes. This is due to the fact that the human body is conductive. The change in the signal activates the safety system.

2. The Aluminum brake stops the blade.
Within milliseconds of detecting the contact, the blade stops. The aluminum brake springs into the spinning blade, to stop the blade.

3. The blade disappears, and the power is shut off.
The blade is then driven below the table, due to angular momentum. The contact is then removed from the hands of the user. Power to the motor is then shut off.

After each detection, the saw must be reset. In approximately five minutes, the single-use brake cartridge and blade can be replaced. Each cartridge is approximately $69.

For more information, see the video.

To purchase your own SawStop, visit their website.

Arizona man killed in trampoline accident

By James Campbell

Tragically, a Phoenix man died after he was injured at an indoor trampoline park. I t happened last Thursday night at SKYPARK Indoor Trampoline Park located near 40th Street and Indian School Road, Phoenix fire department spokesman Scott Walker says.  The 30-year-old man suffered a broken neck after jumping from a trampoline into a foam pit. He and didn’t have a pulse when firefighters arrived.  Paramedics took the man to Maricopa Medical Center where he died Sunday.

"Bouncing on a trampoline is a lot of fun for kids," says Marie M. Lozon, M.D., director of Children's Emergency Services at the University of Michigan Health System. " But over the past 10 to 15 years, we've seen a significant increase in trampoline injuries, ranging from horribly broken legs to ankle sprains, or in some cases, serious head and spine injuries.  And kids age 15 and under account for nearly two-thirds of all trampoline injuries."  It is for this reason that the American Academy of Pediatrics strongly recommends against the recreational use of trampolines.  American Academy Of Pediatrics Report on Trampolines.  

The lawyers at Kinerk Schmidt and Sethi represent Arizonans seriously injured by defectively designed or manufactured products.  If you have been injured by a defective product, please contact us.  

KSS Launches RehabComplaints.com

by Dev Sethi

We continue to learn more about Sierra Tucson, a high-end for profit addiction treatment/psychiatric hospital just north of Tucson.  We represent the family of Dr. Kenneth Litwack, a well-regarded physician who self-admitted to Sierra Tucson in August 2011 for help with anxiety and depression.  Three days after he arrived, he went missing.  His body was found two weeks later on a horse trail just a few hundred yards from his room.

Since this story has been reported in the media, we have been contacted by former Sierra Tucson patients, and patients from other hospitals who share Sierra Tucson's owner, CRC Health.  These patients have shared their own concerns, experiences and complaints.

Information that you might have about Sierra Tucson or CRC Health could be of great assistance to the Litwack family and could help us understand how and why this unnecessary tragedy occurred.  To help collect information, Kinerk Schmidt & Sethi has launched a dedicated website, www.rehabcomplaints.com.  This is a easy to navigate site that allows visitors to easily, and confidentially, share their stories with us. 

Jury awards $1 million in camp lawsuit

By: Dev Sethi

Dylan Walker and his family was awarded a $1 million verdict in a civil case against a federal program entitled: "Operation: Military Kids, Clemson and its Youth Learning Institute" and Clemson University's Camp Bob Cooper. At this camp, four young boys were forced to play the "choking game" by the then 17 year old camp counselor Ronald Edward Riley. The choking game causes a brief high but comes with the risk of serious injury and possibly even death. Clemson University plans to fight the damages awarded in this case as excessive and not supported by the facts.

Bicycle recall due to fall risk

By: Dev Sethi

Giant Bicycle, Inc., announced a voluntary recall of the 2012 Model Year Giant Defy Advanced and Avail Advanced Bicycles. The potential threat to riders is a fall hazard due to the possibility of the fork to crack.

All 2012 model year men’s Giant Defy Advanced 0, 1 and 2 model bicycles and the women’s Giant Avail Advanced 0, 1, and 2 model bicycles have been recalled.

These units were sold at all authorized Giant Bicycle dealers nationwide from August 2011 through November 2011 for between $3,000 and $4,550.

Consumers should refrain from using the recalled bicycles and contact any authorized Giant Bicycle dealer for a free inspection and replacement of the fork.

Jury awards $178 million in medical malpractice case

By: Jim Campbell

Clay Chandler, a lieutenant in the Clay County Sheriff's Department was awarded $178 million in medical negligence and fraud damages at the hands of Memorial Hospital Jacksonville when his laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery went terribly wrong. The day after his surgery, Chandler suffered a respiratory failure and was put into critical care. For over a week, Chandler's fluids from his  bowels leaked into his abdomen. Finally, his doctor took him back into surgery where the leak was fixed.

The hospital’s expert witness testified that most bariatric doctors would have taken Chandler back into surgery as soon as he showed symptoms and absolutely no later than the sixth day after his surgery. At that point, Chandler’s blood pressure dropped to the point where he suffered a “low-flow stroke” in which the brain is not getting enough blood. He went comatose for more than two weeks.

When Chandler was on the respirator, no lubricate eye drops were given to Chandler for weeks. this caused him to burn his retina and cause permanent loss of eyesight.

Chandler cannot walk, feed, clean, bathe himself or speak intelligently. Because the surgeon's inexperience failed to meet the hospital’s advertised accreditation, it equated to fraud.

Chandler said he was pleased by the award sum but said he would trade it all to be the man he once was.

Catholic Priest Accused of Sexual Inappropriateness

By: Jim Dyer

A lawsuit filed by a Colorado woman alleges an inappropriate sexual relationship that was "imposed" on her by a deacon at the local church after she was referred to him for counseling. The lawsuit alleges that Donald Morris Stewart, a deacon at St. Anthony’s Catholic Church, began the sexual relationship in 2002.

The suit names St. Anthony’s Catholic Church and the Diocese of Cheyenne as defendants, in addition to Stewart.  The suit claims that the woman began bereavement counseling with Stewart as a result of the emotional issues related to the deaths of members of her family. The relationship culminated in physical assault on back-to-back days in January 2008. Additionally, Stewart then began calling the woman, leaving threatening voicemail messages on her telephone.

The lawsuit asks for compensatory damages for loss of wages; for medical expenses incurred; for “pain, suffering, disfigurement and loss of use of her body amounting to a partial and permanent disability in an amount to be proved at trial;” and for the “loss of enjoyment of life in an amount to be proved at trial.”

The damages amount exceeds $75,000, according to the lawsuit.