Browsed by
Month: June 2016

Cancer Lawsuit: Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $55M

Cancer Lawsuit: Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $55M

In a second talcum powder cancer lawsuit, Johnson & Johnson has been ordered by a St Louis jury to pay $55 million. The jury deliberated for eight hours on the case where a South Dakota woman blamed her ovarian cancer on using talcum powder for years. Gloria Ristesund was awarded $5 million damages and $50 million for punitive damages. Knowledgeable personal injury lawyers will be quick to note that this follows soon after the company was ordered to pay $72 million in damages to the family of a deceased Alabama woman who allegedly developed ovarian cancer because of using Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder.

The Case for the Cancer Lawsuit:

As with the earlier claim, Ristesund had used the company’s baby powder and other talcum products for feminine hygiene. Although she is now in remission, Ristesund claimed that years of talcum use caused her ovarian cancer.
Ristesund is one of many women who have filed a cancer lawsuit, alleging the company failed to inform consumers of the risks of using talc, a primary ingredient in baby powder. In an internal memo in 1997, a company medical consultant stated that denying the risk of developing ovarian cancer from using hygienic talc is denying the obvious despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The Scientific Evidence:

According to Director of Clinical Cancer Services and chief of Gynecologic Oncology at Winthrop University Hospital, Eva Chalas, it is difficult to link the use of talc with ovarian cancer. The information about talcum powder was released years ago when talc was incorporated into tissue samples of women with ovarian cancer. This concern led to many medical professionals advising mothers to stop using talc on their babies and to discontinue using it for feminine hygiene. However, as the jury award on this second cancer lawsuit suggests, there is still a case that the company failed to adequately inform their customers of the potential dangers of using their talcum products.

Dogs Involved in Dallas Fatal Attack Had Prior History of Complaints

Dogs Involved in Dallas Fatal Attack Had Prior History of Complaints

The dogs though to be responsible for the fatal attack on a woman in Dallas came from a home with a detailed history of past complaints to Animal Services. If you have been involved in such a case, your Fort Worth dog bite law firm will have pointed out that this is an important factor in the claim. The details issued by the City of Dallas suggest prior owner knowledge and that the injuries could have been avoided.

The Dallas Fatal Attack:

52-year-old Antoinette Brown lingered in a coma at the Dallas Baylor Medical Center following the severe mauling. The Dallas fatal attack occurred on Rutledge Street at 4.45 am and following the attack, the Dallas Animal Services issued 16 citations and seized seven dogs from a nearby home. The name of the dog’s owner was not released.

The History of Complaints:

The records state that in a 13 month period between July 13 and August 14, neighbors made ten calls about the location. After repeated Animal Services violation notices, the owner surrendered ten dogs.
In September 2015, there were reports of an attack in progress. Animal Services issued five citations and three more dogs needed to be euthanized.
Dallas police are trying to determine scientifically using test samples to confirm that the seized dogs were responsible for Antoinette Brown’s death.

The Legal Case:

If there is proof of a negligent lack of restraint, there could be a case for second-degree felony charges of attack by a dog. This is feasible where a dog which is known to be dangerous causes a fatality. If the dog’s owner is convicted of this offense, the court could order any dogs owned by this person to be destroyed.
Animal Services have stated that the neighborhood where the Dallas fatal attack took place is a routine patrol route for stray dogs. According to Lavenia Perry, a neighbor in the area many people walk in the neighborhood with a stick to protect themselves against vicious dogs.

Local Letter Carrier Dog Attacks On the Rise

Local Letter Carrier Dog Attacks On the Rise

If you are a mail carrier, Goldberg Weisman Cairo advises that you should be on the alert. In Columbus, the number of dog attacks on local letter carriers has almost doubled, from 22 to 43 between 2014 and 2015. These figures secure Columbus a place in the top ten of cities where mail carriers suffer from dog attacks.

The Dangers to Letter Carriers:

While the weather can’t stop the mail, vicious dog attacks can cause severe delays. According to mail carrier Jessica Powell, dog attacks can be a life changing event. While Powell was used to the sound of dogs barking as she delivered her route, in December 2010 a dog was in the backyard with its owner and immediately attacked her as she was putting the mail in the box. As she was wrestled to the ground, she suffered a dog bite on the face. With three rows of facial stitches spanning her jaw bone to cheek, Powell has left her carrier days behind and now supervises at the post office.
On his Grandview route, Shawn Carter uses orange cards rubber banded on mail for homes where there are potentially dangerous dogs. This is needed to give the carrier a warning so that they can be cautious.

Advice to Avoid Dog Attacks:

For dog owners, there are some necessary precautions to avoid being responsible for dog attack injuries. You should ensure that your dog is contained, especially when your mail carrier is due. Even if the dog is in the yard, it may need to be put on a leash.
Should your letter carrier suffer an attack by your dog, your mail will be delayed and could even be suspended.
Nationwide, there was a total of 6,549 dog attacks on postal employees in 2015. If your carrier is delivering a package to your door, secure your dog in another room before you open the door. A very protective dog may burst through a screen door to get to a strange.
Children should not take mail from a letter carrier directly, as a family dog may see this as a threat. If the letter carrier is concerned about dog attacks on your property, you may be asked to collect mail from the Post Office.