0

What Does It Take to WIN Your Slip and Fall Lawsuit?

Dallas, Personal Injury, Texas


The Texas Supreme Court has not been a friend of the slip and fall victim. Over the last decade the Texas higher courts have handed down multiple decisions making it increasingly difficult for slip and fall victims to obtain any recovery for their injuries and losses. Many victims have even lost their right to a jury trial due to No Evidence Summary Judgment rulings that kill the lawsuit prior to trial, denying slip and fall victims even an opportunity for justice. This is why you cannot fight this battle alone! You must find an attorney who understands what it takes to overcome these obstacles and WIN this battle! You cannot afford to trust your lawsuit to just any attorney. Choosing the wrong representative could be very costly!

To prevail in a premises liability (slip and fall) claim, you must prove:

  1. the owner or operator of the premises knew or should have known of the condition/substance that caused the injury
  2. the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm
  3. the owner did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk; and
  4. the owner’s failure to use such care caused or contributed to your injuries

Often, the most difficult element of your slip and fall claim to prove is that the owner of the premises knew or should have known of the dangerous condition or substance that caused the injury. This proof can be established in one of three ways:

  1. the owner or an employee created the harmful condition (i.e., an employee left water on the floor)
  2. the owner or an employee saw or was told about the harmful condition (i.e., a customer told an employee there was a spill); or
  3. a showing that the substance or condition was present for so long that it should have been discovered through reasonable inspection

If you become injured in a slip and fall incident, taking the following steps may prove invaluable in winning your lawsuit:

  1. Gather witness information from both employees and customers who may have knowledge pertaining to the incident
  2. Determine whether there is a video camera that may have recorded the area where the incident occurred and request that recording
  3. Observe the area, looking for the probable source/cause of the condition that caused the injury
  4. Listen to what the employees and witnesses are saying. Did anyone mention that the condition was there before for example, I was about to clean that or I told you to fix that? Any employee statement that indicates someone knew the condition was there before you fell is EXTREMELY helpful.
  5. Contact an attorney who is an expert in representing victims of slip and falls immediately.
0

FOSAMAX: CURE OR CAUSE?

Personal Injury, Pharmaceutical


Merck’s Fosamax is an oral bisphosphonate, and is prescribed to prevent or treat osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. The prior problem prompting the FDA requiring Merck to make stronger warnings related to Fosamax’s causing death and decay of the jaw bones. The current problem requiring FDA intervention for stronger warnings relates the drug’s causing atypical subtrochanteric femur fractures fractures in the bone just below the hip joint.

These atypical femur fractures can occur anywhere in the femur, from just below the hip to above the knee. The fractures can be completely through the femur bone or just hairline fractures, and may occur in both legs at the same time. Many patients report pain in the affected area, usually presenting as dull, aching thigh pain, weeks to months before a complete fracture occurs. While atypical fractures are very uncommon, the incidence is increased with long term exposure to Merck’s bisphosphonate Fosamax.

The truly disturbing thing about this very dangerous drug is that it was FDA approved, advertised and marketed to prevent bone weakening and breakage by slowing or inhibiting the loss of bone mass. Known as Osteoporosis, this bone weakening disease causes very weak bones that break easily. Women are five times more likely to get osteoporosis than men. Physicians know that osteoporosis is a natural part of the aging process and that there is no way to stop or cure osteoporosis. Physicians know that their patients can slow down this process by taking enough calcium, vitamin D, exercising, not smoking and limiting alcohol intake to no more than one glass per day.

Merck, however, convinced the FDA that it had made a drug that prevented this natural part of the aging process. Slow the natural aging process of loss of bone mass? Amazing discovery if true! It was too good to be true. Merck’™s Fosamax actually made the femur brittle and more susceptible to hairline fractures and breaks than the natural aging process itself.

The question regarding serious injuries from dangerous drugs like Fosamax is always the same: What did Merck know about the risk of these serious femur fracture injuries from Fosamax and how long has Merck known it? This answer to this question comes only through litigation.

0

And Now, Speaking on Behalf of Big Insurance: The Texas Supreme Court

Medical Insurance, Personal Injury, Texas

Earlier this month, the Texas Supreme Court once again cast its arms around Big Business and shoved Texans out the door.

Not so long ago, if you were the victim of an accident wherein medical bills were incurred you could present the total amount of his bills to a jury even if your insurance had paid the majority of those bills. This was fair. After all, one of the elements of damages that you are entitled to is pain and suffering. One way to convey how much pain you suffered is to show the amount of bills you had to pay to not have that pain anymore.

But that has changed. The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the only bills you can present to a jury are the ones you still owe.

Let me give you an example: Let’™s say that you are the victim of an accident wherein your medical bills are $100,000.00. Let’s further say that you were responsible enough to have medical insurance (which, by the way, you paid dearly for because medical insurance is not cheap). In our example, your insurance paid $90,000.00 of your bill and has a lien to get reimbursed of $10,000.00.

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the only amount you can present to the jury is $20,000.00 (the $10,000.00 left over from the original bill plus the $10,000.00 insurance lien). Will $20,000.00 give the jury an accurate picture of how injured you really were? No. So, whatever pain and suffering you would have received is now likely reduced by a large amount.

But let’s take this a step further. Under this new law, the person who hit you and caused the accident, caused you to incur medical bills, caused you to lose time from work, and caused you the pain and suffering now benefits from YOUR insurance.

Yep, the person who slammed into you AND his insurance company get the benefit of all those premiums that YOU paid. The bills HE caused are reduced by the insurance YOU paid for.

It is as if you are being punished for being responsible enough to carry insurance.

And here is a head scratcher: On one hand, we have Federal Government trying to force everyone to buy insurance while the Texas Supreme Court says, yes, but you better never use it in car accidents!.

Excuse me, Texas Supreme Court, but your bias is showing. Again.

0

THE US SUPREME COURT IS “MENSING” WITH YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS

Uncategorized


The US Supreme Court correctly held in its 2010 decision in Wyeth v Levine that state tort laws do not conflict with federal law and can be used to hold the pharmaceutical manufacturers accountable for the serious injuries and damages caused by their dangerous drugs. The legalese for the legal issue made the basis of that decision is preemption: Are claims brought on state tort laws inconsistent with and therefore preempted by federal law. The Court recognized that the FDA could not possibly shoulder all of the responsibility for determining the safety of a prescription drug during the new drug approval process. It further recognized that tort laws were not inconsistent with the federal laws and regulations that the FDA operates under, and those laws play a very important role in determining the safety and effectiveness of dangerous drugs that the FDA approves. After all, the only information the FDA has to make that decision comes from the drug’s manufacturer. No comfort level, there.

In June, 2011, the same US Supreme Court in Pliva Inc. v. Mensing held just the opposite for the manufacturers of the generic forms of these dangerous drugs. The Court found that state tort claims are inconsistent with and are preempted by federal law and are not permitted. This ruling is significant for a number of reasons. First, the company that develops and obtains FDA approval to market a drug (called the innovator) maintains that exclusive right for a ten year period. That ten year period can be extended under certain circumstances. After that ten year period and/or any extended periods run, the exclusivity is lost. Other drug companies can manufacturer and market the innovator’s exact same drug under its own name. These identical drugs are called generics. Second, the generic manufacturers do not have the same duties that the innovator has in the new drug approval process to test generics for safety and effectiveness and for full, complete and accurate disclosure of all know risks of serious side effects associated with that drug; this is the sole responsibility of the innovator. Third, if the innovator’s label for the drug is inadequate and incomplete, the generics’ label will be inadequate and incomplete. Fourth, if your physician prescribes a generic form of a drug, or worse yet if your insurance company will only approve and pay for a prescription filled with the generic form, and you suffer a serious injuries and damages from that drug, you will not be able to file suit to seek compensation against the generic manufacturer.

Since the innovator obtained FDA approval and is responsible for the drug label’s full, complete and accurate disclosure of all know risks of serious side effects, it appears that the patient may be able to bring suit against the innovator even though the patient ingested the generic and not the original form of the dangerous drug. The pharmacy, pharmacist, insurance company, and physicians are also left exposed by this ruling for their part in the patient’s injuries and damages. Prior to the Mensing decision, Bailey & Galyen did not included pharmacies, pharmacists, insurance companies, and physicians in cases filed against the drug companies for serious injuries and damages. The Supreme Court’™s decision now forces us to include them in the lawsuit.

While the ruling is consistent with Levine, its disservice is that it leaves the generic manufacturers untouched and unaccountable for serious injuries caused by their dangerous drugs. It puts the consumer between the proverbial rock and a hard place, with the fox guarding the hen house.

0

The Trial

Auto Accidents, Personal Injury, Texas


Although most accident cases settle before trial, there are a few that actually get to a jury. Knowing this, every case in pre-litigation is handled with litigation in mind so as to have a file prepared to go to litigation if the need arises.

So, we need in pre-litigation to have the same proof mindset that we have in litigation.

In a trial, we need to prove two things, and then we need to prove a connector.

First, we need to prove that the accident or incident was the defendant’s fault. We must prove that the defendant is the only person who is responsible for the accident. This is called liability. We must prove the defendant is liable.

Second, we must prove damages. We must prove there were authentic medical bills, lost wages, pain, suffering or any other damages that apply.

Then we must prove the connector. We must prove that it was the accident that caused the damages. The defense may claim that the injuries you suffered came from an earlier accident or incident. We have to prove that the accident, and only the accident, caused the damages we are claiming.

Knowing these elements, we in pre-litigation prepare our cases to prove the exact same elements to the insurance companies with whom we are negotiating. The insurance companies must know that if they refuse to settle with us, we already have the proof we need to be successful in trial.

And that is what makes us always prepared to represent each and every client we have at Bailey & Galyen.

1 2 3 4 … 6