News & Investigations

After a week of deliberation, a panel of international experts and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a subset of the World Health Organization (WHO), has succeeded in classifying exhaust from diesel fuel as “carcinogenic to humans, Group 1.” This decision is based on “sufficient evidence” that exposure is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer. Exhaust from diesel fuel was originally classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans, Group 2,” in 1988; and has been on the “high priority” list for re-evaluation for over a decade. The consortium also found a positive correlation between exposure to exhaust from diesel fuel and bladder cancer (limited evidence). Additionally, it was concluded that gasoline exhaust was “possibly carcinogenic to humans, Group 2B”, a finding unchanged from the previous evaluation in 1989. The IARC warns that exhaust from diesel fuel is particularly dangerous for those living in large, congested cities, and workers who are consistently exposed. In reaction to these significant findings, Dr Christopher Portier, Director of the National Center for Environmental Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) and Chairman of the IARC Working Group, states “Given the additional health impacts from diesel particulates, exposure to this mixture of chemicals should be reduced worldwide.” In order to reduce diesel fuel emissions the government must pass a series of regulations that would limit the amount of diesel exhaust that is emitted into the air; and while the past two decades have lead to mounting environmental concerns resulting in worldwide regulatory action, more must be done to tighten emission standards for both diesel and gasoline engines. These regulations have a strong relationship with technology; as manufactures try to oblige these standards to keep their businesses running. For instance, manufacturers of diesel engines have been forced to make required changes in the fuel such as marked decreases in sulfur content, changes in engine design to burn diesel fuel more efficiently and reductions in emissions through exhaust control technology. Despite these technological advances, more research must be done to determine if a reduction in diesel emissions will lessen its detrimental health effects on humans. According to IARC, existing fuels and vehicles without these modifications will take many years to be replaced. This is especially true for developing nations, in which regulatory standards are not enforced or do not exist. Read the entire Press Release here.

The annual death toll from truck-related crashes is the equivalent of twenty-six major airplane crashes every year. There is no getting around it; collisions with trucks are just more dangerous than your average fender bender. Large trucks- tractor-trailers, heavy cargo trucks, 18-wheelers, semi-trucks- are more than 10,000 pounds of steel hurtling down the highway. In fact, the largest legal weight for a truck is 80,000 pounds without a special permit! If these massive vehicles lose control, the damage is often catastrophic. In fact, the fatal crash rate for large trucks is 2.4 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles. This is more than 50% greater than the rate for all vehicles on the road. In a collision involving a large truck and smaller passenger vehicle, it is often the latter that is severely impacted. Many times, the truck driver will walk away with minor injuries-if any, while the driver or passengers of the smaller vehicle are left with catastrophic injuries and damages. In fact, in two-vehicle crashes involving passenger vehicles and large trucks, 98% of the fatalities were occupants of the passenger vehicle. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, nearly one quarter of occupant deaths in passenger vehicles that had multi-vehicle collisions were the result of crashes involving large trucks. This particular vulnerability is due to the massive difference in sheer size and weight of a large commercial truck. That is why the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety advocates freezing truck size and weight. They argue that bigger trucks compromise safety. According to the advocates, the risk for accident and death increases for each pound over the federal gross vehicle weight of 80,000 lbs. In fact, a truck weighing the legal 80,000 is about twice as likely to be involved in a fatal truck accident, than one weighing 50,000. They also argue that one 80,000 pound truck does as much damage to a road as 9,600 cars! As the industry standard to large commercial truck size continues to grow, many advocates for highway safety worry that the risk for fatal truck accidents will increase. Their logic is quite simple really, and could potentially save thousands of lives!

Properly used for the right patients, prescription medications can relieve suffering while reducing the risk of heart attack, seizure, stroke or other serious medical conditions. Not every drug is the right choice for every patient, however, and both the selection and dosage of medications must be carefully matched to individual patient needs in order to achieve the clinical objective and avoid injury or death. In medical malpractice litigation related to errors in prescription drugs, careful analysis of the patient’s medical history and treatment records is necessary to answer a number of critical questions: • Is there a causal link between the patient’s injury or death and the use of a particular medication? • Did anything in the patient’s medical history indicate the inadvisability of a particular drug? • Was the patient properly instructed in the safe use of the drug, or advised about what to do if certain side effects develop? • Did other medications the patient was using indicate elevated levels of risk with the use of this drug? • If administered by a nurse or other hospital staff, was the drug used in a manner consistent with the doctor’s instructions and the manufacturer’s disclosures and warning? • Was the prescription filled as it was written, or in a different dose or even a different drug? Although prescription and medication errors often present relatively easy cases for proving liability, it is not always clear just whose mistake was responsible for the patient’s damages. The proper defendant might be the prescribing doctor, the pharmacist who filled the prescription, or the nurse who administered it to the patient. In some cases, prescription errors are related to other negligent mistakes in diagnosis or treatment, and different defendants will blame one another for the patient’s unfavorable outcome.

Expert Support is Essential in Prescription Error Cases

Whether or not the liability issues are reasonably clear in a negligent medication case, Pennsylvania law requires that the plaintiff’s case be supported by expert medical opinion before it will be allowed to go forward in court. With decades of experience in the investigation and proof of medical malpractice claims, Philadelphia trial attorney James McEldrew knows how to assemble the right team of medical experts for a given case of prescription error.

Call (215) 545-8800 in Philadelphia for a Free Consultation

Mr. McEldrew also knows how to overcome the obstacles that can arise in establishing a firm causal link between the mistake in medication and the patient’s injuries, which is often open to dispute. For a free consultation with an experienced medical malpractice lawyer, contact McEldrew Law in Philadelphia.

In Philadelphia, parent filed a medical malpractice (birth injury) action against Dr. S. in federal district court  (James McEldrew filing as the plaintiff attorney). The MCARE Fund defended Dr. S., and, although both lawyers and parties discussed settlement, the action proceeded to trial.   At trial, parent presented expert medical testimony to show that, before Parent gave birth to twins on November 4, 1995, Dr. S. failed to diagnose parent as suffering from a chorioamnionitis infection.   As a result of this failure, both babies were infected.   When the trial concluded, the jury awarded $6.25 million for our client’s injuries and $6.9 million for our other client’s injuries involved in same incident, for a total verdict of $13.15 million.

Employees in service industries such as mortgage financing, brokers, call centers, and information technology in many cases are paid by salary and commissions and not paid overtime. Many such workers regularly work incredibly long hours and when factoring in their compensation systems are not paid any overtime when the law may require it. Many times employers may not even know that they are violating the law due to the specialized nature of the work. Ignorance is no excuse. If you would like to contact our law team about a possible case, fill out a form now.

In an effort to cut payroll costs many companies today will name certain employees “assistant manager” or “supervisor” and pay them a set salary. However, due to the nature of the employees’ work and the lack of true management authority, these employees are, in fact, legally entitled to the payment of overtime. Assistant managers or supervisors who don’t have actual management authority such as hiring and firing fall into this category. If you would like to contact our law team about a possible case, fill out a form now.

In today’s economy, many providers of cable, satellite, telecommunications, networking, and environmental services employee technicians without paying them any overtime even though in many cases they are required to do so based upon the aspects of the work involved. If you would like to contact our law team about a possible case, fill out a form now.

Many cleaning and maintenance companies will not pay its employees for time spent traveling from one job to another. Additionally, these employers may also pay its employees on a “per job” basis, or a lump sum for a location to be cleaned. In many instances, these employers do not compute over-time premium pay for these employees. If you would like to contact our law team about a possible case, fill out a form now.