Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Last August we discussed lawsuits brought by over 75 ex-football players against the National Football League. The players sought unspecified amounts of damages for head injuries sustained over the course of their careers. The players alleged that the NFL knew of the harmful effects of multiple concussions as early as the 1920s, but kept that information from players until 2010. Riddell, the helmet maker, was also named in the lawsuit as a defendant.

These lawsuits are still pending and a hearing was recently held in Miami to determine whether the cases, which were filed in various federal courts, including Atlanta, Miami, New York and Philadelphia, should be consolidated into a multidistrict region. One interesting issue in this case is the possibility that the NFL will claim that the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the players should apply to the players’ head injuries, thus requiring the players to seek compensation via more traditional outlets such as workers’ compensation and disability benefits and the NFL’s medical and long term care plans.

As explained in a Workforce.com article about this lawsuit, according to an attorney representing many of the players,  the concussions and other head injuries suffered by the players were sustained in ways unrelated to typical workforce dangers:

While some players have been able to receive benefits for concussion-related injuries, McGlamry said player attorneys are seeking to prove, in part, that their clients face health problems due to negligence that extended beyond typical workplace hazards.

So, while the NFL would prefer to limit recovery by the injured players to more traditional venues, the players claim that the league negligently misled them by downplaying the risks of head injuries and minimizing the long term effects of concussion-related injuries and cognitive disorders.

The outcome of this case remains to be seen and it will likely be quite some time until this brain injury lawsuit winds its way through the court system and a resolution is reached. But, nevertheless, it is an important case and emphasizes the dangers of traumatic brain injuries and the risks associated with engaging in activities that tend to result in head injuries.

The Ankin Law Office LLC (www.ankinlaw.com) handles workers’ compensation and personal injury cases. You can reach the firm by calling (312) 346-8780.

Related articles

• Hall of Famer suing NFL over health problems (foxnews.com)
• NFL back Jones-Drew disparages head-injury reforms (sfgate.com)
• NFL questions validity of concussion lawsuits (espn.go.com)
• Head Cases: The NFL’s Anti-Concussion Super Bowl Ad (bleacherreport.com)

Courtroom (Photo credit: srqpix)

Up until very recently, Illinois was 1 of 14 states refusing to allow the use of cameras in courtroom for the purpose of recording court proceedings. But its hold out status changed last week after an announcement from the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Court explained that it would test the waters and permit the use of cameras in select courtrooms via a special pilot program. As part of the test project, use of cameras in courtrooms would be limited to courts in the 14th Judicial District, which is located in Western Illinois near the Iowa border and includes Rock Island, Henry, Mercer and Whiteside counties.

The decision to permit cameras in court was met with mixed reviews, as explained in this Chicago Tribune article:

Evans (chief judge of the Cook County Circuit Court) praised the court’s decision last week, saying that allowing the public to see what happens inside a courtroom would allow them better understand the justice system in an era where most people can watch hours of courtroom drama daily on shows like “Law & Order.”

“The way democracy works best is when the public is informed,” he said. “This will show the public that the courts are not like they see on those programs.”

Some of Evans’ peers were concerned that cameras might make local courtrooms more like the TV versions, with witnesses, attorneys and even judges more likely to act out to draw attention to themselves.

Of course, this debate is not a new one. Every time any state proposes allowing camera in courtrooms, similar arguments are made and there are some who vehemently oppose to the concept. Even so, the majority of states allow cameras in U.S. courtrooms and for good reason: transparency is an important part of the judicial process. Permitting the use of cameras in courtrooms and thus allowing the recording of Illinois lawsuits makes the court process more transparent and more easily accessible to the general public.

The Ankin Law Office LLC (www.ankinlaw.com) handles  workers’ compensation and personal injury cases. You can reach the firm by calling (312) 346-8780.

Related articles

• Northwest Illinois Courts First To Get Cameras (chicago.cbslocal.com)
• Cook County Plans To Go Ahead With Cameras In Courtrooms (chicago.cbslocal.com)
• Put U.S. Supreme Court arguments on TV (cnn.com)
• Ill. Supreme Court To Allow Cameras In Courts (chicago.cbslocal.com)

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled last November 2011 that the State of Minnesota could proceed with its claim against Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., the California firm that designed the Minnesota bridge that collapsed in 2007, killing 13 and injuring 145 others.  The State’s claim against Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs) is based on the fact that the bridge was designed by a firm that Jacobs acquired in 1999.  The bridge collapse was found to have been caused by a design error that led to inadequate load capacity.

More than 100 lawsuits were filed in 2009 and, pursuant to the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, the State of Minnesota has paid more than $37 million to victims of the bridge collapse.  The State has also sued URS Corporation, the firm hired to inspect the bridge in 2003, and Progressive Contractors Inc., the company who had performed repairs on the bridge.  Both of these companies have also filed claims against Jacobs, the design firm, seeking contribution, indemnity and reimbursement for their liability under a Minnesota law that allows injured victims to make a statutory claim for reimbursement in the event of an accident.  The court dismissed these claims, however, due to a ten-year Statute of Repose, which provides that a company is immune from liability ten years after construction of the bridge.  Since the bridge was built in 1967, liability of Jacobs with respect to the claims of URS Corporation and Progressive Contractors expired in 1977.

Despite the fact that the indemnity claims of URS and Progressive Contractors against Jacobs were dismissed, the State of Minnesota’s claims against Jacobs were not dismissed.  The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the State’s claims for reimbursement could continue due to a Minnesota statute that retroactively revived the State’s claims despite the expiration of the State of Repose deadline.  Specifically, Minnesota statute 3.7394 allows the state to recover from any responsible third parties any payments made from the emergency relief fund despite any statute to the contrary.  Accordingly, the State is permitted to seek reimbursement for the payments made to victims of the bridge collapse despite the time limitations in the Statute of Repose.

Impact of Court’s Decision

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the case to proceed against Jacobs Engineering could have far reaching effects.  Despite a Homeland Security Report issued in April of 2011 revealing that nearly 12 percent of U.S. bridges are structurally deficient and should be replaced, many states have delayed replacement and basic maintenance on their bridges due to budget shortfalls.  These lawsuits could provide a wake-up call to bridge design firms, architectural firms, construction companies, maintenance companies and state governments that bridges are part of America’s infrastructure that can no longer afford to be ignored.

Howard Ankin of Ankin Law Office LLC (www.ankinlaw.com) handles workers’ compensation and personal injury cases. Mr. Ankin can be reached at (312) 346-8780 and howard@ankinlaw.com.

In an attempt to protect consumers from the dangers of defective medical devices, the U.S. Senate recently proposed draft legislation that would require manufacturers to conduct ongoing safety studies of medical devices even after the device has obtained the approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  The legislation was drafted, in part, as a response to the increasing number of lawsuits that have been filed against the manufacturers of defective medical devices, particularly vaginal mesh implants.

Currently, the FDA permits certain medical devices to be approved under its 510(k) system, which requires only that manufacturers demonstrate that their product is substantially similar to one already on the market.  The Senate pointed to the 2010 recall of the DePuy ASR hip implant system, which was approved under 510(k) procedures, as evidence that the current guidelines are ineffective in protecting the public from dangerous and defective medical devices.

With respect to the specific dangers associated with transvaginal mesh implants, the FDA has also requested that manufacturers of vaginal mesh implants, such as Bard and Johnson & Johnson, provide additional information regarding the companies’ safety inspections and recall procedures.

Since 2008, the FDA has warned consumers and health practitioners since 2008 about serious complications associated with vaginal mesh implants that are used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.  According to the FDA, more than 1,000 reports from nine surgical mesh manufacturers, including American Medical Systems, Bard, Boston Scientific, Caldera, Ethicon, Gynecare, Johnson and Johnson, Mentor and Sofradim, have been filed with the FDA’s adverse events reporting database.  The American of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Urogynecologic Society issued a joint statement last November recommending that the use of transvaginal mesh be limited.  Although the FDA is continuing its safety review of vaginal mesh implants, there are currently no plans to issue a recall of these products.

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against the manufactures of transvaginal mesh implants, as well.  C.R. Bard and Johnson & Johnson face hundreds of lawsuits from women claiming that their transvaginal mesh implants caused scarring, pain, bleeding, blood vessel damage and other complications.

If you have been injured by a medical device, such as transvaginal mesh or a hip replacement system, you may wish to consult with an experienced product liability attorney.  At Ankin Law Offices, LLC, our knowledgeable Chicago product liability attorneys focus on protecting the victims of dangerous and defective products, including defective medical devices.   Contact our offices at (312) 346-8780 to schedule a free consultation with one of our skilled Chicago medical device attorneys to learn more about your legal rights.

Howard Ankin of Ankin Law Office LLC (www.ankinlaw.com) handles workers’ compensation and personal injury cases. Mr. Ankin can be reached at (312) 346-8780 and howard@ankinlaw.com.

Litigation pending over BPA in plastic bottles has hit a major roadblock.  Last month a Missouri federal court denied class certification for the plaintiffs’ claims over the use of bisphenol A in baby bottles and sippy chips.  The plaintiffs’ claims were part of multidistrict litigation pending in a federal court in Missouri.  Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, is a federal court procedure whereby civil actions with common issues of fact are combined for purposes of discovery procedures and pre-trial motions.

Although the court initially refused to certify three proposed multistate classes in 2011 based on issues regarding choice of law, commonality, and damages, the court granted the plaintiffs an opportunity to show that a class of Missouri-only consumers is appropriate for class certification.  The plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification of claims brought by Missouri-only plaintiffs against three manufacturers of baby bottles and children’s sippy cups – Handi-Craft Company, Gerber Products Company, and Evenflo Company, Inc.

In denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of Missouri-only plaintiffs, the court focused on the plaintiffs’ lack of standing.  A court may not certify a class if the proposed class includes members who lack standing to bring a lawsuit against the respective defendants.  The plaintiffs’ class in this case included individuals who had not suffered an injury, such as those individuals who knew about BPA’s existence and the potential dangers associated with BPA but purchased the products despite possessing this information.

The court also denied class certification based on issues of reliance.  For instance, plaintiffs argued that knowledge includes only consumers’ reliance on defendants’ alleged nondisclosure of the dangers associated with BPA.  The court disagreed with plaintiffs’ assessment, however, and explained that the issue of reliance presupposes that the consumer did not know the relevant information.  Since many plaintiffs in this case did possess knowledge regarding the potential dangers of BPA prior to purchasing the products, reliance could not be asserted.

Moreover, the court determined that the proposed class included individuals who may not have suffered an injury even if they were unaware of BPA when they purchased the products.  The plaintiffs argued that the class members were injured through the lack of material information prior to making their purchases, but the court held that the consumers were purchasing baby products and not information.

In addition, the court found that there were concerns regarding commonality of claims with respect to the proposed class since classwide evidence cannot be used to show what defendants knew or should have known since the information regarding BPA changed during the class period of 1997 through 2006, as well as issues related to materiality, superiority and manageability of the claims.

If your child has been injured by a baby bottle or sippy cup containing BPA, you may wish to contact the experienced Illinois product liability attorneys at Ankin Law Offices, LLC to learn about a possible personal injury or product liability claim.

Howard Ankin of Ankin Law Office LLC (www.ankinlaw.com) handles workers’ compensation and personal injury cases. Mr. Ankin can be reached at (312) 346-8780 and howard@ankinlaw.com.

Chicago Wrongful Death | Chicago Social Security Disability | Chicago Class Act ion Lawsuits