Richmond Injury Lawyer Jason W. Konvicka

If you used the birth control pill Yaz* and had a blot clot leading to a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis or stroke, you should be aware that the national Judge handling this litigation has ordered the manufacturer to come to the bargaining table to work out a settlement for the victims.

Yaz* includes Yasmin, Beyaz, Gianvi, Loryna, Ocella, Syeda and Zarah.

The law firm of Allen & Allen is investigating claims arising from patients taking Yaz*, and helping those recipients who have valid claims.  Contact our product liability attorneys for a free consultation by calling 866-388-1307. We work on a contingency fee basis so you will pay nothing up front.

About the Author: Richmond, VA personal injury attorney Jason Konvicka has handled complex product liability cases during his career spanning over 15 years.

Medical Malpractice Attorney Malcolm P. McConnell, III

On a recent, late autumn afternoon, I was mowing my lawn for the last time this year.  As I reached the edge of my yard, I attempted to turn the lawnmower around to cut the next strip of grass.  The lawnmower stuck a large stick that had fallen from a tree and it stopped moving abruptly, causing me to stumble and fall over and in front of the lawnmower.

As I fell, I let go of the lawnmower handle, releasing the spring-loaded lever that killed the engine.  By the time I hit the ground, the engine was off and the blades were no longer turning.

I stood up, unharmed (but a bit embarrassed) by my fall, and realized that only the safety features in the design of the lawnmower had kept me from potentially crippling injuries.

There was a time when such a fall would easily cause serious injury . . . or even death.  There was a time when lawnmowers had no safety devices to kill the engine and stop the blades, and simply cutting one’s grass could result in a maiming or a death.

Somewhere along the line, lawnmower manufacturers began adding this simple safety device, just as automobile manufacturers have created safer automobiles to avoid and survive rollovers and rear-end collision explosions and added seatbelts, shoulder straps and airbags[1], just as manufacturers of medications have added warnings to consumers not to take their medicine with alcohol, just as manufacturers of table saws have added blade guards, just as manufacturers of home insulation have stopped using asbestos, just as toy manufacturers have eliminated many toy hazards for children[2], and so on and so on and so on.

Where did all of this safety-consciousness come from?  Whom should consumers thank for encouraging manufacturers to make their products safer?  Whom should consumers thank for making us safer?

Thank a trial lawyer.

The Chamber of Commerce does an excellent job of demonizing lawyers and blaming society’s ills on us, but litigation and the civil justice system have been the most consistent and powerful forces to improve safety standards.

Lawsuits, such as product liability lawsuits, provide an economic counterweight to the quest for greater profits at a result of cheap but unsafe manufacturing standards. In a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, lawsuits give ordinary citizens the ability to stand on equal footing with multi-billion dollar corporations, while trial lawyers provide the voice for those ordinary citizens.  Only through lawsuits and trial lawyers can powerful, well-funded corporate interests be held accountable for their wrongful conduct and defective products.

So if you like safer lawnmowers, foods, toys, cars and tools, thank a trial lawyer.  If you like being informed of the dangers of medicines, foods and hazardous machines and tools, thank a trial lawyer.  If you like knowing that you are entitled to the same treatment in the courts as Exxon or Wal-Mart or McDonalds and that you have the power as an ordinary citizen to hold them accountable for their wrongs, thank a trial lawyer.

Chesterfield injury lawyer Trent S. Kerns

Author: Attorney Trent S. Kerns

How can you prove that a product was defective without the product in a product liability case?  How can you prove that a condition was unsafe if the condition has been altered or removed?  Many personal injury cases become unwinnable because there is not a prompt investigation.

I recently had a case in which the wooden stairs to a second floor deck of my client’s home pulled loose and caused her to fall.  As a result, she was severely  injured.  Fortunately her son-in-law suggested that she contact an injury lawyer at Allen and Allen immediately, and she did so.  Knowing that there had to be some defect in the construction, design, or maintenance of the steps for this incident to occur, our product liability attorney arranged to get experts out to examine the stairway right away.  Since the experts were able to view the stairs within a matter of days following the accident, and before the stairs had been altered, removed, or repaired, the experts were able to determine that the failure was due to inadequate securing of the stairway to the decking by use of insufficient nails and other subpar work.  If the stairs had been removed, we would not have been able to determine that the steps were improperly built and were in fact in violation of the building code.  Only a prompt investigation with expert examination and photographs of the stairway before the stairs had been removed and before there had been changes made allowed the expert to determine the exact cause of the failure.   Although this is just one example it serves to remind everyone that contacting an attorney promptly is extremely important.

What if a motor vehicle collision occurs in a roadway construction area?  The scene may be altered before photographs are taken if a prompt investigation is not made.  What is an eyewitness gives their contact information to the injured person or the police officer at the scene, but this information is discarded or misplaced before an investigation occurs?  What is the eyewitness moves or changes their phone number before an investigation occurs?  You can have an car, truck or motorcycle accident in which independent witnesses who are critical to the case die, move, or for other reasons are unable to be located and that could make the difference of whether you win or lose your case.  Whether it is an automobile accident, failure of a product or failure of some condition, it is important to promptly call an experienced accident lawyer so that they can determine if immediate action needs to be taken.

About the Author: Trent Kerns is a Chesterfield accident lawyer. For over 25 years he has worked to protect the rights of Virginia and Midlothian area residents injured in car accidents, motorcycle accidents, product liability cases and other difficult injury cases.

Richmond Personal Injury Attorney P. Christopher Guedri

Author: Attorney P. Christopher Guedri

In my years as a Virginia personal injury attorney I’ve helped clients with a dizzying array of injuries and medical conditions. It always saddens me when I see someone whose suffering could have been mitigated if their condition had been diagnosed in time.

One client, a State Trooper, fell victim to misfortune and a defective product. After slashing his finger to the bone on a hubcap, he developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and watched helplessly as his right hand curled and warped into a misshapen claw-like appendage. This injury ended his career as a state trooper.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, or CRPS, is a chronic, progressive disease characterized by intense pain and swelling. It generally begins with a small injury, after which the blood flow to the region is compromised. The actual cause of a small trauma advancing to Complex Regional Pain Syndrome is not well understood. As the disease progresses the skin and bones become irreversibly warped. In most cases this eventually leads to the affected limb being rendered all but useless.

The key to Complex Regional Pain Syndrome is catching the disease early. If treatment begins within two or three months of the first symptoms, there is some chance that the limb will retain some functionality through physical therapy and drug treatments. However, if the condition goes undiagnosed for too long it is all but impossible to wrest back any function whatsoever. After a few months, most treatments will be largely ineffective.

Sadly it is too late for my client. He will deal with the complications of his condition for the rest of his life. But it is my hope that by educating people about this disease we can prevent others from being so drastically affected.

About the Author: Richmond product liability attorney Chris Guedri has over 30 years of experience handing complex defective products cases. Chris is also experienced in handling trucking and car accident cases in Richmond and throughout Virginia, some involving wrongful death or traumatic brain injury (TBI). Recognized by his peers as a superb litigator, Chris has been listed in the book Best Lawyers in America since 1995 and in 2008 he was inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, an organization of attorneys who are elected to membership based on their reputation for excellence. He has also been included among the “Legal Elite Best Lawyers in Virginia” by Virginia Business Magazine.

Richmond Personal Injury Attorney P. Christopher Guedri

Author: Attorney P. Christopher Guedri

A vehicular pursuit can result in all sorts of unpleasant outcomes, and losing a hubcap would generally rank among the least worrisome. But for one unfortunate trooper, it was as devastating as a high speed crash.

State Trooper Jason Moyer was engaged in the pursuit of another vehicle when his squad car lost a hubcap. He dutifully obtained a replacement and set about its installation, but during the process the air valve became wedged underneath the new hubcap. Trooper Moyer reached behind the hubcap in an attempt to free the valve, and sliced his finger to the bone on the razor sharp inner edge of the hubcap.

Under ordinary circumstances this would have been a severe injury, but one that would have healed with time. However, in this case Trooper Moyer developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. CRPS caused the bones and skin of his right hand to twist and warp into a claw-like appendage. Because a police officer must be weapons certified with both hands and able to affect an arrest on a resisting subject, this ended Trooper Moyer’s career.

I agreed to represent Trooper Moyer and brought suit against General Motors for the faulty manufacture of an inherently dangerous product. The company’s lawyers argued strenuously, and the case mushroomed into a massive litigation battle culminating in a four day trial. During the trial, the inherently dangerous nature of the hubcap became clear. Despite a warning as to the extreme sharpness of the inner edge, two jurors cut themselves when the hubcap was passed around as evidence. Later during closing arguments, the primary defense lawyer for General Motors attempted to demonstrate that the hubcap was safe and also cut himself! Needless to say, his final argument for the hubcap as a perfectly safe piece of equipment was not convincing.

The jury agreed with my assessment of the hubcap and came back with a $950,000 dollar verdict. This amount was more than justified given the permanent and career ending nature of the injury. According to General Motors, this case represents the first time a plaintiff has ever been awarded damages for injury caused by a hubcap. The jury’s verdict was an excellent result for a deserving client, and is one I am still proud of to this day.

About the Author: Richmond product liability attorney Chris Guedri has over 30 years of experience handing complex defective products cases. Chris is also experienced in handling trucking and car accident cases in Richmond and throughout Virginia, some involving wrongful death or traumatic brain injury (TBI). Recognized by his peers as a superb litigator, Chris has been listed in the book Best Lawyers in America since 1995 and in 2008 he was inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, an organization of attorneys who are elected to membership based on their reputation for excellence. He has also been included among the “Legal Elite Best Lawyers in Virginia” by Virginia Business Magazine.

Products Liability Lawyer Jason W. Konvicka

Author:  Attorney Jason W. Konvicka

Products liability is an area of the law that relates to the legal responsibility of manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers for defective products that injure those using the products after they enter the marketplace.  Various parties may be responsible for a dangerous product.  They include the designers of a product, the manufacturers of component parts (parts used to make a product), an assembling manufacturer (the company that takes the component parts and assembles them in to the final product), a packaging and user manual creator (who prepares warnings, instructions, labels, and directions), wholesalers (who sell the products from the manufacturer to retailers), and retailers (who sell the products to the public).  The original purchaser of a dangerous product may be the injured party, but other users (someone who borrows the product for example) may be injured as well.

Product liability law differs by jurisdiction.  The law in one state may be different than the law in another.  However, general principals are the same.  Products liability claims can typically be based on theories of negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability.  Negligence includes defective design where a product or its components were designed incorrectly and all of the products are dangerous, no matter how carefully they were manufactured.  Manufacturing defects involve mistakes or flaws during the manufacturing process where some of the products are manufactured incorrectly.  Some products may be safe, but some may not.  Breach of warranty claims arise out of the violation (or breach) of statements made by the manufacturer or seller during the sales process.  These claims can involve breach of an express warranty, breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.  Express warranties include express claims made by the manufacturer or seller about the product, i.e., “this wheelbarrow can carry up to 200 pounds.”  Implied warranties cover the expectations that all consumers have about a product’s safety, i.e., this product is not unreasonably dangerous if it is used for its intended purpose.   Under strict liability theories, the focus is on the product itself and not the manufacturing process.  The manufacturer is strictly liable for a dangerous product even if the manufacturer was not negligent in the manner in which it made the product.  Strict liability is not recognized in Virginia for products liability cases.  However, negligence and breach of warranty theories are.

Products liability cases can be complicated and are often very expensive to pursue.  Highly trained expert witnesses are often required to investigate and testify regarding the defective product.  Damages witness such as treating physicians, vocational consultants, economists, and other experts are also necessary.  It is not uncommon for a plaintiff’s lawyer to invest many thousands of dollars and countless hours to prepare a products liability case for trial.  The lawyers for the manufacturers and retailers of the product may spend even more money defending the lawsuit.  For this reason, plaintiff’s lawyers are typically very careful to select only those cases that they believe are meritorious and involve catastrophic injuries and damages.  In addition, before accepting such a case and while he is handling it, the lawyer will usually want to be sure that the client is aware of the risks and difficulties of this type of a case, and has a realistic view of their case.

Even with strict case selection and the investment of substantial time and resources, products liability cases can be very difficult to win.  Therefore, if you believe that you have been injured by a dangerous product, you should take great care to hire a law firm that has extensive experience handling products liability cases.

The attorneys at Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen have substantial experience investigating, litigating, and trying products liability cases.  Founding partner, Ashby Allen, obtained one of the first jury verdicts in Virginia against a major car manufacturer in 1950.  Since that time, Allen Law Firm attorneys have successfully handled a wide range of cases involving dangerous products.  These include automotive cases involving sport utility vehicle (“SUV”) rollovers, roof crush, seat belts, airbags, tires, rims, door locks and latches, fires, 15 passenger vans, conversion vans, and seatback collapse.  Our attorneys have also worked on cases involving lead poisoning; asbestos exposure; dangerous medical devices and drugs; swimming pool accidents involving diving injuries, drowning, and near-drowning; food recalls involving food products containing salmonella, e-coli, and foreign substances; defective car seats or booster seats for children; hunting equipment such as tree stands and defective firearms; household appliances and equipment including ladders, humidifiers, and irons; building equipment and materials including roofing, cranes and bucket lifts; and many other products.  If you or someone you know have been seriously injured as a result of a dangerous product, call the Allen Law Firm.  We are here to help.

About the Author: Richmond, VA personal injury attorney Jason Konvicka has handled complex car accident and product liability cases during his career spanning over 15 years.

DePuy Hip Replacement Recall

Author: Attorney Jason W. Konvicka

In August of 2010, Johnson & Johnson’s artificial joint replacement company, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., issued a recall of two hip replacement products because of excessively high failure rates that required second surgeries.   If you or someone you know has had a hip replacement that may have used one of these products, you should be aware of this recall.

What DePuy Hip Replacement Products Have Been Recalled?

1. ASR Hip Resurfacing System
2. ASR XL Acetabular System

What Was the Cause of the Recall?

The recall came after data showed that one in eight patients needed a “revision surgery,” which is required when an artificial joint doesn’t properly fit, within five years. Some of the symptoms suffered by those with a faulty hip replacement include pain, swelling, and difficulty walking. The hip implant recall could affect an estimated 93,000 replacement systems and over 29 different models of hip replacement implants. Anyone who had a hip replacement after July 2003 may be affected.  The FDA received approximately 300 complaints where patients had to have the device replaced soon after it was implanted, dating back to 2008.[1]

DePuy voluntarily withdrew the system from the Australian market in 2009 and then in March of 2010, DePuy stopped selling the ASR XL system in the United States. It was not until August 2010 that DePuy finally announced a voluntary recall of their system in the United States.[2]

How Can I Tell if I Have a Recalled Hip Device?

To determine if you have hip replacement product that has been recalled, you should contact your doctor or orthopaedic surgeon. If you don’t know who performed your hip replacement surgery, ask your primary care physician or someone at the hospital where the surgery took place.  The surgeon’s name may also appear on the bill or on an EOB (Explanation of Benefits) form you received from your health insurance company.

What Should I Do if I Think I Received a Defective Hip Replacement Component?

If you think your DePuy cup is failing, that is a medical matter which should be discussed with your doctors. They are the ones best suited to investigate failures.  If you do have a DePuy hip replacement covered by the recall, you may need legal counsel to advise you.

The law firm of Allen & Allen is investigating claims and numerous adverse event reports made to the FDA arising from DePuy Hip Implant failures, and helping those recipients who have valid claims.  Contact our product liability attorneys for a free consultation by calling 866-388-1307.

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

If you have ever had a DePuy ASR XL hip replacement system or have been injured as a result of its failure, contact the attorneys at Allen & Allen online or by calling 866-388-1307.

About the Author: Richmond, VA personal injury attorney Jason Konvicka has handled complex product liability cases during his career spanning over 15 years.

[2] See New York Times article “Johnson & Johnson Recalls Hip Implants”, at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/business/27hip.html.

AAJ Report - They Knew And Failed To

The American Association for Justice Report: They Knew and Failed To…

Introduction by Attorney P. Christopher Guedri

As a trial lawyer who has handled a number of complex products liability cases over my career, I view one of the rolls of the American civil justice system to protect consumer rights against corporations who knowingly endanger and fail to protect their customers. A recent report out from the American Association for Justice (AAJ), outlines scenarios where corporation responsible for product failures which endangered the lives of consumers, some even resulting in deaths, not only had knowledge of the products’ dangers, but also failed to do anything about it. Because government regulations and checks and balances on corporate liability in these scenarios can be lacking or lenient, the duty falls to the civil justice system to hold these companies responsible and hopefully make consumers safer in the long run.

To download the full report click here: AAJ Report -They Knew And Failed To

AAJ Report - Driven to Safety

An American Association for Justice Report: Driven to Safety

Introduction by Attorney P. Christopher Guedri

We hear a lot these days about the costs that the American legal systems imposes on the economy, in terms of supposedly unnecessary additional expenses, such as medical tests, safety equipment, large verdicts, and ridiculous warnings.  Those claims support the views of those who want to limit legal rights of consumers and who want to be able to ignore safety with little risk of being held responsible for the results of their actions.   What we don’t often hear about is the tremendous benefits of the American legal system in terms of making us all safer.   Nowhere is this truer than with regard to motor vehicle safety.

The American civil justice system plays a major role in keeping consumers safe. It is the most effective way of holding companies accountable when products fail.   The court system protects the general public from poor safety decisions in manufacturing and packaging.    In the wake of the safety failures of Toyota vehicles and the injuries and deaths that resulted, the American Association for Justice released a report this year that chronicles the safety changes that our court system has created. The Report, entitled “Driven to Safety: How Litigation Spurred Auto Safety Innovations”, describes how the civil justice system has contributed to making automobiles safer for consumers over the years.

The fifteen-page AAJ Report: Driven to Safety contains information about how lawsuits have brought about safety changes in almost every part of the automobile: steering wheel design; body design, including side crush and roof crush improvements; gas tanks and fire/explosion prevention; windows; tires; handling, including electronic stability control; brakes and braking, including transmissions and parking brake mechanisms; and occupant protections, including seatbelts, airbags, and door latches.    The chronology and description of significant auto safety lawsuits clearly demonstrates that, without being held accountable in court, auto manufacturers would be making much less safe vehicles today.  Corporations are entities set up to make profit, and safety features are often seen as an unnecessary expense.   The cases described in the Report show that over and over the auto manufacturers were aware of safety features that often cost only a little more per car, but did not add these features to their cars until lawsuits forced them to do so.

As the Report concludes, “Some would say that automobile safety is the sole responsibility of federal regulators. Others say that not even regulators should address safety, and instead it should be left to the free market to protect consumers.   In fact, neither regulation nor the market can succeed in protecting Americans alone. The slow-moving nature and political vulnerability of federal rules, coupled with the revolving door relationship between the car manufacturers and the agencies, leaves regulation as an incomplete protection. The market, meanwhile, can only dictate safer vehicles if the consumer’s desire for a safe car is matched by honest information about their relative safety merits, which is not easy to come by when manufacturers often cover up their vehicle’s defects.  Rather, federal safety standards work in conjunction with the civil justice system as a two-pronged approach to protection, which in turn spurs safety innovations in the market. Since the 1960s, the civil justice system has worked to make Americans safer. Design defect litigation has enforced safety standards, revealed previously concealed defects and regulatory weaknesses, and deterred manufacturers from cutting corners on safety for the sake of greater profits.”

Download the AAJ Report – Driven to Safety

About Christopher Guedri: Chris Guedri is a Virginia personal injury attorney with the law firm of Allen & Allen. Since joining the firm in 1991, Chris has focused his practice on car accidents, trucking accidents, products liability, and premises liability litigation.