San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

A man from Virginia was awarded $212 million this week in a case against Botox maker Allergan Inc, according to newsinferno.com. The man, Douglas Ray, age 67, claimed that the drug left him brain damaged and disabled, and that Allergan neglected to warn his physician about Botox’s Risks. Botox is used to treat different issues, such as wrinkles; severe neck muscle and limb spasms, called dystonia; and severe primary axillary hyperhydrosis, also known as excess sweating. In April of 2009, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration mandated a black box label for Botox, and similar products, that warns of the risk of adverse events when the effects of a botulinum toxin injection spreads beyond the injection area.

Lawsuits involving Botox are nothing new. In a separate case, in 2007, a man received a Botox injection for a hand tremor and writer’s cramp, and then developed severe medical complications. He is asking for $683,800 in medical expenses. In a different case, Allegran settled a case involving the family of a Botox recipient who died. And in another case, Allegran settled a Botox case with the Justice Department for $600 million. The case alleged, backed by the claims made by two whistle blowers, that Allergan illegally marketed the drug for off-label uses. The case accused Allegran of paying doctors to attend meetings promoting unlawful marketing and to lobby healthcare payers to cover off-label use of the drug. Also, the Justice Department claims that Allegran spent $8 million on an independent, online neurotoxin education organization to stimulate increased use of Botox. And as a final example, last year Allegran reached an out of court settlement with the family of a woman who died after receiving Botox for shoulder pain. Her family claimed that she was never informed of the risks involved with using Botox.

If you or a loved one suffered an injury due to the use of an unsafe drug, please contact our firm for a free consultation. We have the expertise to settle any type of personal injury claim, and will fight on the behalf of our clients in court, when we are not able to settle, and win.

The cell phone industry is pushing hard against a San Francisco ordinance that requires information about cell phone radiation be disclosed to consumers, according to newsinferno.com. CTIA-The Wireless Association recently filed suit against the city of San Francisco in order to prevent the cell phone radiation disclosure ordinance from being enacted. It turns out CTIA has five law firms representing their claim that the San Francisco ordinance infringes on the industry’s First Amendment rights by forcing it to acknowledge, against their will/belief, that there may be a problem with radiation exposure. They are also claiming that cell phone regulation is a federal matter, meaning no city or state can interfere by requiring disclosure of radiation absorption levels.

Studies about health effects of cell phone radiation have been inconclusive, but studies are showing that there is a need for more research, as some of the current research has raised red flags. For example, in a World Health Organization’s Interphone Study of around 13,000 people from different countries, it was revealed that the heaviest cell phone users--those who use the device at least 30 minutes a day, on the same side of their heads-- had a 40 percent higher risk for gliomas, a common type of brain tumor. In a different study done by the National Institutes of Health, researchers found that 50 minutes of cell phone use was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in the region closest to the phone antenna, and it is one of the first studies showing scientific evidence that cells phones affect brain activity.

The outcome of this case will have far reaching consequences, as it will determine how all other cities shape their ordinances, and, as a result, many cities are watching closely. If San Francisco gives in to the industry, this could set a precedent, and will send a message to the little guy, in this case individual cities: They can’t beat the big corporations and that big business will always show up on the scene with their arsenal of lawyers and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them.
If you suffered an injury due to the use of an unsafe product, please contact our firm for a free consultation. We have over 10 years experience helping consumers settle claims regarding injuries they suffered after using dangerous products.

Earlier this month, a Muni passenger on the 24-Divisadero line videotaped the driver texting while driving. When the passenger confronted the driver, the driver threw the passenger off the bus. After the incident, the Muni driver was suspended, but last Thursday, the same passenger saw the same driver behind the wheel of the same bus. The spokesman for the Municipal Transportation Agency, the agency that operates Muni, said they are conducting an investigation to find out how the operator ended up behind the wheel last Thursday, and also said that, as of Friday, the driver is no longer employed by SFMTA. What happened to this particular Muni driver should be a stark reminder for anyone who has forgotten the California law banning the use of a handheld device while driving, especially for those who drive commercial vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported in 2008 that driver distraction was the cause of 16 percent of all total fatal crashes, in which 5,800 people were killed, and 21 percent of crashes resulting in injuries, in which 515,000 were wounded.

By now it should not be a surprise to anyone that texting while driving can lead to disastrous results. Specifically speaking, texting while driving forces drivers to take a hand off the wheel and their eyes off the road in order to type messages and occasionally glance at incoming messages. Statics show that you are 8 times more likely to get into an accident if you are texting. One way for you to stay safe while driving is to put you phone on silent, especially if you are not someone who is expected by their employers or family members to be on call. And if you are expected to be available every second of the day, you should pull over to answer incoming calls—and don’t forget to make sure that your car is in a safe place, not obstructing traffic--or have a blue tooth device so that you don’t have to take your hands off the wheel to answer. However, having a conversation, even if it is on a hands free device, can be just distracting because it can take away your focus from the road in front of you. Other driver distractions to be aware of are listening to loud music, as loud music can drown out important sounds from the outside, such as ambulances, horns or aggressive drivers. Reading maps is another task that takes a drivers attention away from the road and cause an accident. If you or a loved one suffered an injury due an accident involving a distracted driver, please contact our firm. We have successfully helped victims of car accidents and can help you get the compensation you deserve.

Last week a pedestrian was struck while jogging through an intersection at Masonic and Grove. She survived the accident, but the driver managed to break her leg as he slammed into her after running a red light. The accident is one of several that have occurred on Masonic recently. As a result, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has installed a number of traffic calming measures on Masonic over the past nine months, and additional steps are supposed to be implemented over the next few months. Some of the steps include re-striping badly faded travel lanes, painting directions for motorists to merge where a number of lanes on Masonic change, and painting 25mph on the street surfaces. The MTA has also proposed removing parking spaces and installing separated bike lanes, bike lanes that would be from either a raised curb or soft-hit posts. In addition to all of that, North of the Panhandle Neighborhood Association has officially endorsed, along with the SF Bike Coalition and the community grout Fix Masonic, the Boulevard Option for Masonic avenue, which proposes to turn Masonic Avenue into beautiful tree-lined, safe boulevard. The project would plant 200 trees along the boulevard, improve the sidewalks, paint bike lanes green, and create bulb-outs to allow safer and easier crossing at intersections for pedestrians.

These changes are much needed on Masonic, as the current layout of the street and the many vehicles that travel at high speeds make it frightening for pedestrians and cyclists. Because Masonic is flat and moves north to south between height and the Presidio, it is a main thoroughfare for many pedestrians and cyclists, all of whom should not have to worry about becoming another statistic. But that the worrying will be over soon, and we can all thank the consorted efforts of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and Fix Masonic for pushing the SF Municipal Transportation Agency to move ahead with plans aimed at calming one of the busiest and most dangerous streets in San Francisco. If you have suffered an injury while biking or walking in San Francisco, please contact our firm. We have over 10 years experience successfully settling claims for cyclists and pedestrians.

The growing presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a major challenge today. According to one study published in the Journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, much of our meat and poultry is contaminated with multidrug-resistant staph, which means consumers across the U.S. are at risk—and what those risks are is still unclear. Antibiotics are the most important drugs we have to treat Staph infections. But when Staph is resistant to several different antibiotics, patients have few options for treatment, leaving them sick and vulnerable to dying. According to warning issued by the World Health Organization (WHO), overuse and misuse of antibiotics, including in the general overuse at the therapeutic level, is creating a global war against infections and diseases as they render existing antibiotics useless. The fact that the drug-resistant pathogen was so prevalent, and likely came from the food animals themselves, is troubling and demands attention to how antibiotics are used in food-animal production today. However, lowering or halting the use of antibiotic use in animal production could have serious effects on the meat and poultry industry. At the same time, there is a growing movement to reduce the use of antibiotics, but there is still controversy over whether or not low-dose usage of antibiotics in food animals can be directly linked to drug-resistant illness in people.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe no food production company should be allowed to add antibiotics, or any drugs or chemicals, to our food until they can prove doing so does not put consumers’ health at risk. But the sad fact is that stopping the use of it now could lead to increased animal disease and a further reduction in food safety. Our current food production system is so enmeshed in the practice of using antibiotics-- ever since ranchers and farmers discovered decades ago that it would make animals gain weight, which would lead to higher yields and ultimately raise industry profits—that that same system could crumble if things were to change. But maybe that is a good thing.
If you or a loved one suffered an injury due to the consumption of a tainted food product, please contact our firm for a free consultation.

A 48-year-old Oakland man driving to Reno with his family was killed when he crashed and rolled over on eastbound interstate highway 80 in Albany yesterday morning, according to SFGate.com. The man was driving a white Ford Explorer when he suddenly veered to the left, overcorrected, and then lost control. The SUV rolled multiple times before coming to rest. The man was pronounced dead at the scene, while his wife had a broken leg and his children, ages 10 and 12, suffered minor to moderate injuries. The wife was on the phone of the time of the crash. She was talking to family members who were also heading up to Reno. The family members told the CHP that the line went dead and when they called back, there was no answer. When they did get through after a few minutes, they heard sirens and commotion. The CHP are not sure if he was distracted at the time of the crash. They did say, however, there was no indication that alcohol was a factor.

This story brings up an important and forgotten fact about SUV’s: they are not vehicles built for safety. What is more, people die just as often in SUV’s as they do in cars, and people who drive SUV’s are more likely to die in a rollover than someone in a car. The simple truth is that the biggest SUV’s doesn’t make you safer than if you were in a large car or minivan. SUV’s make people feel they are in control and in charge, but that is just an illusion. Even though many more safety features are being built into vehicles today, many can’t afford them. Perhaps some of the newer models are safer, but it is hard to know for sure, as we still don’t see car companies making SUV’s safe in all foreseeable types of crashes, especially rollovers. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe the real and only way for a consumer to stay safe is to be an informed consumer. If you or a loved one suffered an injury in a rollover crash, contact our firm for a free consultation. We have over 10 years experience representing clients involved in violent SUV rollovers and can help you receive the compensation you deserve.

According the sfexaminer.com, a homeless man, Michael Stafford, allegedly shot by a store employee in the Haight, following a dispute that began over a Chihuahua, is suing the owners of the property where the shooting occurred, claiming the incident left him permanently disabled. The news report stated that he frequented Fred’s New Lite Market before he was shot on February 9th. Fred Kazzouh, Sam’s older brother, said that Sam had been taking medication for schizophrenia and that Stafford himself has an emotional condition. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and alleges that Sam Kazzouh, the store owner’s younger brother, shot Stafford in the head and back, leaving him paraplegic. It also claims that Kazzouh’s family, which runs the store, knew Sam suffered from mental illness that made him prone to violence, but, nevertheless, allowed him access to a gun.

These types of civil suits fall under the category of Premise Liability, a term used to describe the legal responsibility that a landowner and occupier of a property has for injuries and accidents that occur on their property. Premises liability claims can be filed for a variety of reasons. For example, slip and fall injuries are common types of premise liability claims. In addition, claims may be filed for injuries that are the result of equipment that is used on the property. Also, injuries that may be a result of another person’s actions on the property may be the responsibility of a property owner, especially if the owner fails to provide adequate security on the property.

Anyone who has been injured due to the negligence of others and considering filing a premises liability claim, should contact an attorney in a timely manner. This is important because injured parties will want to protect and preserve vital evidence. Also, potential claimants will need to find out if there is a statute of limitations, the time in which a person has to file a claim from the moment the injury occurred, bearing down on the matter. If you or someone you love has suffered an injury due to negligence on the part of a property owner, please contact our firm. We have over 10 years experience helping injured parties receive the compensation they deserve.

A lawsuit has been filed in Alabama federal court over Freightliner heavy duty trucks manufactured by Daimler Trucks North America LLC, a division of Daimler AG. The Freightliner truck lawsuit is seeking class action status and alleges Daimler sold thousands of vehicles with defective rac-and-pinion steering systems. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The lawsuit points out that Daimler has issued voluntary recalls of its rack-and-pinion steering systems. According to the recall notice the left hand inner tie rod may loosen over time and potentially separate from the steering rack under certain conditions, which could cause in the driver to lose control and potenially cause a catastrophic accident.

Here at thehttp://www.brodfirm.com Brod Law Firm we have safety advice for drivers when they approach commercial trucks during their everyday commute. Firstly, you should always be extra alert as you approach a large truck, as their blind spots are difficult to avoid. That being said, the following is a helpful tip for navigating a truck’s blind spot: If you can’t see a truck’s side mirrors, then that means the truck driver can’t see you. Also, you should never pass a truck on the same side it is signaling to turn. Trucks need to swing wide to negotiate turns safely, and the rear wheels follow a shorter path than the front wheels. As a result, you could get cought in the middle of the turn and collide with the truck. In addition, trucks require much more distance to stop in comparison to cars. Forcing a large vehicle to stop quickly can result in a fatal accident, so stay at a safe distance in front of trucks. And you should always use the proper procedure to pass a large truck or a bus on the highway--accelerate slightly and maintain a consistent speed while passing, and wait until you can see the entire cab in your rear-view mirror before signaling and pulling in front of it. Lastly, never attempt to cut off a truck in traffic or on the highway to reach your exit or turn.

If you of loved one suffered an injury due to a collision with a commercial truck, contact our office for a free consultation. We have over 10 years experience helping victims of serious traffic accidents get the compensation they deserve.

Exposure to toxins in cleaning products is pervasive throughout homes in the United States and children are especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of chemicals. An infant’s exposure can be particularly high due to the fact that they crawl on the ground and put their hands in their mouths, which causes them to ingest chemicals from the floor such as hardwood or tile cleaners and carpet finishes. Frequent use of hazardous cleaning chemicals is associated with persistent wheezing among pre-school children, and increases the likelihood of asthma attacks among children. Even the cleaning products that are labeled “green” emit hazardous compounds not listed on labels.

A study at the University of Washington, has shown that there are hundreds of chemicals hiding in popular products such as, laundry detergents, deodorants, shampoos, and air fresheners. All such products emit at least one chemical classified as toxic or hazardous, according to the study, and some even emit at least one chemical considered a probable carcinogen by the U. S. Environmental Protection agency. The study established the presence of various chemicals but made no claims about possible health effects. However, the researchers have found from surveying the public that 20 percent of the population have had adverse health effects from air fresheners, and about 10 percent complained of adverse effects from laundry products vented to the outdoors, especially among asthmatics.

The Household Product Labeling Act, which is currently under review by the U.S. Senate, would require manufacturers to list ingredients in air fresheners, soaps, laundry suppliers and other consumer products. Consumers can avoid such chemicals by cleaning natural ingredients, such as with vinegar , lemon and baking soda. For more information on volatile organic compounds, visit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s website at and the National Library of Medicine. If you or loved on suffered an injury due to the use of a hazardous product and would like to know if you have a claim, please contact our office. We have over 10 years experience handling product liabity claims and know how to help victims win the compensation they deserve.

According to almanacnews.com, fifty five drivers have been officially encouraged to think before using a handheld cell phone while driving. The Menlo Park Police Department issued citations to distracted drivers as they were driving through Menlo Park on April 4th and 5th —48 were cited for talking on a handheld phone while driving and 7 for texting while driving. In Atherton, the police department issued two citations for talking on the phone, and the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office issued 22 citations for talking on the phone and 2 tor texting. It turns out, traffic patrols throughout California have designated April as the “zero tolerance” month for distracted driving. The other two remaining days of crackdown are April 14th and 28th. Citations will cost drivers a minimum of $159 for the first time and $279 for subsequent violations. Drives who used a hand-held cell phone or device quadruple their risk of an accident serious enough to injure someone, according to studies that claim this behavior has a severe affect on reaction time, the same reaction time as drunken driving.

According to distraction.gov, distracted driving is any non-driving activity a person engages in that has the potential to distract them from the primary task of driving and increase the risk of crashing. There are three types of distracted driving:
• Visual—taking your eyes off the road;
• Manual—taking your hands off the wheel;
• Cognitive—taking your mind off what you’re doing.
In 2009, 5,474 were killed and 448,000 were in injured in crashes involving driver distraction.
Distracted driving comes in many forms, such as cell phone use, texting, eating, drinking, talking with passengers, and the use of electronic devices. There are less obvious, and much more difficult to prove, forms of driving distraction, such as daydreaming or dealing with uncontrolled emotions. If you or a loved one suffered an injury by a distracted driver, please contact our firm. We have over 10 years experience handling personal injury claim and will fight to get you the compensation you deserve.

Yesterday, a southbound Caltrain struck and killed a man in San Mateo Thursday morning, according to the San Francisco Examiner. Train No. 198 left San Francisco station at 12:01 a.m. and hit the pedestrian on the tracks about 100 yards north of 25th Avenue at around 1am. Authorities are investigating how the man ended up on the tracks. There were 62 passengers on the train at the time of the incident, which continued southbound shortly after 2 a.m. and made all scheduled stops.

When a train accident occurs and you are injured or a family member is injured or killed, you may think that seeking monetary damages is an inadequate form of compensation, but monetary compensation can help pay for the medical bills and living needs of the train accident victim’s family. Victims injured by a train need to prove, with the aid of an attorney, that the defendants failed to act in a carful manner when they had a duty to do so and that the accident caused their injuries. Since each train crash is different, and each victim’s injuries and losses are unique, the types of damages available in each train crash will be different. An attorney can help you decide which kind of damages you should seek, such as medical bills and health care costs, future health care costs, property damage, impaired earning capacity, lost wages, pain and suffering, life care, and wrongful death. And because each train accident is unique, as they can have a single cause or multiple causes, a qualified and experienced attorney can decipher, with the help of accident reconstructionists, engineers and other experts, all the parties that can be held liable for a victim’s injuries.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we have litigated and settled a large number of personal injury claims on our clients’ behalf, and we are able put our legal expertise to work on any personal injury case, including train accidnets. If you or a family member suffered an injury due to the negligence of another, please contact our firm. Our firm will work hard on your claim to get you the compensation you deserve for your injuries, and we will fight on your behalf in court when a settlement is not possible

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Williams-Sonoma is recalling hot chocolate pots, which were sold nationwide, online at www.williams-sonoma.com, and through Williams –Sonoma catalogs from October 2010 through January 2011, for about $30-$40. The recalled product was manufactured in China and imported by ICI USA, LLC of Seattle, Washington. There have been 28 reported incidents of handles breaking off the posts, in addition to eight reported incidents of injuries involving minor cuts or burns. Around 28,000 hot chocolate pots were recalled in the United States and 700 have been recalled in Canada. Specifically, the product involved is the Whirly Whip hot chocolate pots, item number 2981454 or 4986535. They were also sold as part of gift set, item number 3021714. The item number is located on the box in which the product is sold, just below the bar code. The pot is white porcelain, has a red handle and red knob, and comes with a frother attached under the knob’s lid. Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled hot chocolate pots, immediately, and they are advised to return the product to any Williams-Sonoma store for a full refund.

Every year thousands of people are injured from using defective products. Often, defective products are the cause of serious or deadly injuries. Many products are recalled because they pose dangerous burn related risks for consumers. When a person is burned by a dangerous product, he or she may be able to pursue a product liability action against the seller or manufacturer of the product. If a person did not buy the dangerous product and was injured by it, such as an innocent bystander or a person who borrowed the dangerous product from a friend and used it, they may also be able to file a claim. A product liability claim can be filed against the manufacturer of the product, as well as the supplier, distributor or retailer of the product. Manufacturers and sellers of dangerous goods can be sued for negligence, and sometimes proof of negligence is not necessary under the rule of strict liability. If you have questions regarding a potential claim and whether or not you may be able to recover damages, please contact our firm.

Despite the statistics showing air travel to be one of the safest modes of transportation, air travel is not a risk free mode of tranportation. In fact, as air travel increases, the risk of an aviation accident also increases. It is worth pointing out that aviation accidents actually occur more frequently than publicized, though many are minor and don’t result in injuries. At the same time, however, aviation accidents can sometimes result in serious injuries, or even the dealths of hundreds of passengers, especially after impact with a body of water or treacherous landscape.

Just today, the government has decided to order emergency checks of certain older model Boeing Co. 797s for the kind of fatigue cracks that prompted Southwest Airlines Co. to cancel hundreds of flights after one of them made an emergency landing last Friday due to a hoe in its fuselage. The order will cover 175 planes worldwide. Most of the planes that need checks are in the United States and flown by Southwest. Thankfully the incident did not lead to a serious accident. The plane was able to land in one piece with no injuries reported. If that Southwest flight had ended catastrophically, figuring out the liable parties would have been an extremely challenging job.

Determining responsibility after an aviation accident is usually a complex process, involving numerous parties, such as the pilot, air traffic controllers, equipment manufacturers, and so on. As a result, all civil aviation accidents are investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board, an independent agency responsible for investigating aviation accidents and publishing reports based on its findings. Depending on the cause of the accident, the liable party could include the owner operator of the airplane, the manufacturer, the parts or maintenance suppliers, or the federal government. When the government is liable for aviation accidents, it is subject to special rules and regulations. However, most aviation accidents are subject to general aviation law as determined by state and federal authorities, regardless of responsibility.

Individuals who have been injured in an aviation accident may be eligible to seek compensation for their losses, including lost wages and earning capacity, pain and suffering, medical expenses, etc., through an aviation lawsuit. Those who have been injured as the result of an aviation accident should seek the early advice of an attorney, as all aviation lawsuits are subject to a statute of limitations, which restrict the time an individual has to file a claim. If you have lost a loved one suffered an injury in an aviation accident, it is important for you to know your legal rights. Please contact us today for a free consultation so that we can help you understand your legal rights and options.