Early symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning, such as headaches, nausea, and fatigue, are often mistaken for the flu because the deadly gas goes undetected in a home. Prolonged exposure can lead to brain damage and even death, as in the following case which our firm litigated

Mrs. X was 91 years old, partially blind, and confined to a wheelchair in an upscale assisted living senior citizens nursing home. The property was beautifully kept with an excellent staff-to-patient ratio. Mrs. X, in addition to the facility personnel, had her own outside companions to assist her. Her children, both professionals, took the greatest of care for their mom who, despite her age and physical infirmities, had full presence of mind and was still laughing and telling stories to her grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Mrs. X and her home healthcare worker were found one morning when she failed to answer her door for the breakfast call. Facility nurses found Mrs. X comatose and the companion groggy and disoriented on the floor. Emergency rescue was called and they rushed both ladies to the hospital. While the healthcare aid survived without serious consequences, Mrs. X did not fare so well. Despite receiving administration of 100% oxygen and hyperbaric oxygen therapy treatment, Mrs. X remained in a comatose state for 3 weeks, and a diagnosis of brain death left no alternative to her family than to permit removal of the life support system which was keeping her alive.

Because of the age of the decedent, and the expenses involved in litigating a carbon monoxide poisoning case, the family was turned down by two firms which the family sought to engage. As a personal favor to the family of the decedent, PP&L accepted the case with the proviso that should PP&L not find a substantial basis of responsibility that would make litigating feasible, the firm had the option to withdraw from the case.

PP&L was able to settle the case after discovery showed that the cause of the death was a result of the boiler manufacturer's errors, the heating and air conditioning contractor's errors and the nursing home's failure to maintain the integrity of their mechanicals, for a sum in excess of a half a million dollars for the family of the 91year old decedents estate.

The Philadelphia drug injury lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis have long taken on prescription drug companies for the harm caused by victims who were taking them for their prescribed purposes only to find that they were being harmed, sometimes fatally. Settlements and verdicts have been reached against these giant corporations all the while asserting that their drugs were safe.

What kind of signature diseases and conditions are known to be associated with the use of Accutane? Most commonly successful claims have been maintained for plaintiffs who suffered drug-induced ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s Disease and other inflammatory bowel disorders. Although these conditions can be treated successfully in cases of mild or moderate disease, they are, in advanced form, life-threatening. Other related side effects that may be actionable include birth or growth defects, bone and muscle loss, central nervous and cardiovascular diseases, pancreatitis, lupus and thyroid disorders.

ABC News and Good Morning America (as well as several other local and regional news agencies) have now reported the concern that these terrible effects may occur from the use of Fosamax. Met with such reports the FDA is investigating whether doctors and the public should be warned by Merck. In the most recent report aired on March 9, 2010, Dr. Richard Besser advised women who are taking Fosamax or generic alendronate, who begin experiencing pain in their thigh to see their doctors immediately. A complete fracture may be around the corner. Even in the absence of such a warning sign, they should ask their doctors if they should remain on Fosamax. A link to the Good Morning America show may be found at:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/video/fosamax-linked-fractures-bones-10049562?tab=9482931§ion=1206835&playlist=1363742

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/WorldNews/osteoporosis-drugs-fosamax-increase-risk-broken-bones-women/story?id=10044066

This story, coupled with the one Ms. Sawyer did the night before, is beginning to alert the nation about the horrific incidence of femur fractures occurring without trauma in such insignificant motions as getting up from a sitting position. Being one of the strongest bones in your body, the fact that bones become so brittle and weak can simply snap has raised the concern that Fosamax, designed to make bones stronger, over time has the opposite effect.

There is also a news report on Good Morning America:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/video/fosamax-linked-fractures-bones-10049562?tab=9482931§ion=1206835&playlist=1363742

Merck continues to deny liability and the FDA will not send out warnings as of yet, but assert that they “are looking into it.”

For several years, the Fosamax Femur Fracture lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis have been in the forefront of litigation against Merck representing women who have suffered femur fractures from the use of Fosamax.

If you go to our special Fosamax Litigation page on our website, you will find copies of one of our complaints, key medical articles and other resources to inform you.

Merck denies any causal connection between Fosamax and femur fractures and has been fighting the cases we have brought. Gladly, the print and television media has now begun exposing the incidents of such fractures in women using Fosamax over a long period of time. One noted Washington physician, Dr. Robert Bunning, after seeing the stark evidence of this rare fracture (where no catastrophic trauma can be implicated) appearing in patients who had been taking Fosamax over a prolonged period of time, gave an interview that was televised on local TV. Yesterday, on March 8, 2010, Diane Sawyer of ABC News reported this issue over its TV network. A link to this report can be found at:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/WorldNews/osteoporosis-drugs-fosamax-increase-risk-broken-bones-women/story?id=10044066

Our Fosamax Femur Fracture Product Liability lawyers have already filed three other actions in the District of New Jersey and are preparing other actions to be filed. We are in the process of having these Fosamax cases consolidated. Unfortunately many woman who have been on long term treatment to prevent or to treat osteoporosis with Merck's compound alendronate (Fosamax) have suffered low energy fracturing of their femur and have had to undergo intramedullary rodding surgery. Often, however the condition caused by the long term use of Fosamax prevents adequate healing leading to further surgeries and long term need for a wheelchair.

Our Fosamax Femur fracture attorneys have alleged on behalf of our clients that:

"It is believed and therefore averred that Merck knew or should have known and failed to warn that long term use of Fosamax was unsafe because it could cause low energy femur fractures of the type that plaintiff suffered."

"Merck, particularly with its heightened knowledge and experience, knew or should have known that long term use of bisphosphonates, including Fosamax, could inhibit the production of new bone cells (osteoblasts) and therefore would prevent repair of naturally occurring micro fractures in the femur which could lead to serious low energy femur fractures, and/or that prolonged suppression of bone remodeling with Fosamax could lead to serious low energy femur fractures; and that femur fractures caused by long term Fosamax use could occur despite the apparent absence of sufficient trauma."

Despite the massive amount of information on the web many individuals who have employment issues are confused as to just what can be done to protect his or her rights. Too often, I receive calls from discriminated individuals who have lost their rights because of their fear of retaliation from an employer who violated their Title VII rights.

Fact: If you file a claim through our firm’s auspices and your employer fires you because you have sought legal advice and representation, whether your concerns of discrimination were correct or not you, are protected and have legal recourse.

Employment discrimination law traditionally had been employer-oriented. Simply put, without an employer no jobs would exist and society law has a vested interest in protecting and promoting the interests of the employer.

I can't tell any of you reading this blog how many times over the last 20 years I have had to tell emotionally upset male and female workers (more often sensitive females) that the boss can be a bastard so long as he is a bastard to everyone equally. Should they be able to get away with that behavior? Well they can to a point.

What can you do to get out of this situation? Primarily a sensible alternative is to look for a new position but in this economy prospects are slim, "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush" is a maxim that in these economic times will serve one well to consider.

There is a short-term remedy that can be taken by you if it's just a matter of time until you find other employment. Filing with either the Philadelphia Commission On Human Relations, The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, before any action is taken against you if you feel that your job is threatened. Should there be any RETALIATION for your action of protecting your rights you will have one of the very best discrimination actions available.

For sources that elaborate on your rights to address discrimination concerns and for seeking damages for retaliation by an employer, see, e.g.:

http://www.phila.gov/humanrelations/index.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/field/philadelphia/

http://www.phrc.state.pa.us/

Coupled with the recent legal reinterpretation and qualification of protected Title VII rights relating to gender stereotyping discrimination, it is easy to predict that a whole body of law will emerge in the employment discrimination area. One such case, Prowel v. Wise Business Forms, Inc. (discussed below), already sheds light on the sweeping scope of this cause of action.

In Prowel (No. 07-3997), decided on August 28, 2009, the Third Circuit reversed a district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of an employer on a claim of gender stereotyping discrimination. The claim was brought by an admittedly homosexual employee who alleged he was subject to gender discrimination, retaliation because of his effeminate actions and mannerisms. The Third Circuit stated:

"…every case of sexual orientation discrimination cannot translate into a triable case of gender stereotyping discrimination, which would contradict Congress’s decision not to make sexual orientation discrimination cognizable under Title VII. Nevertheless, as long as the employee — regardless of his or her sexual orientation — marshals sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could conclude that harassment or discrimination occurred “because of sex,” the case is not appropriate for summary judgment."

Interpretation of the Gender Identity Guide by the Philadelphia gender discrimination attorneys in our firm lead us to believe that the future will be a slippery slope for those employers who will be displaying conservative emotional responses to those employees who do not appear or act in their stereotypical gender roles.

Mary Wilson suffered from constant persistent excruciating pain after her hand surgery and within several weeks her hand contracted into a fist, her right elbow bent inward and her right shoulder drew upward. Despite 20 appointments with her surgeon and his consultant there was no diagnosis given to her that let her know her problems were from a medical mistake that happened during her surgery. Indeed the two doctors did not believe her serious pain and disabling injuries were related to her surgery, so how could she have? When she finally lost confidence in her doctor and sought a third opinion, it was more than two years from the surgery. Exploratory surgery then revealed that her radial nerve had been lacerated. Despite filing suit seven months after this discovery, her case was dismissed by the trial court and the first level appellate court based on the two year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court allowed her appeal and while the opinion reinstated her lawsuit, it was with the burden of proving to the jury that for less than two years before the suit was filed, she did not have either actual or constructive knowledge that she was injured and that the injury was from her surgery, despite using reasonable diligence to find out.

While her suit is "still breathing", proving medical malpractice in a court room is hard enough without the extra burden of proving that the statute of limitations hadn't run before suit was filed. The Supreme Court in footnote 21 in Wilson gives good advice to avoid such a situation. "...this Court has stressed that the timely pursuit of legal representation may be necessary...It is certainly possible that discussions with an attorney may expedite medical diagnosis, since attorneys have access to litigation resources and can supply advice concerning what measures (such as exploratory surgery) will best maximize an injured person's chance of recovery." The dissent which would have allowed the suit as a matter of law, pointed out in footnote 2 that your doctor's self preservation instincts may overcome their duty to you saying: "While it is not in the record, as a matter of common sense, we can divine that Dr. Nutt was appreciative of Dr. El-Daief's referral of this as well as other patients, and was not about to jeopardize the referral relationship by explaining to appellant that Dr. El-Daief's malpractice was the cause of her difficulties."

Our attorneys obtained the necessary records by starting suit and doing careful and persistent discovery. We pieced together what actually happened. Nursing Home Resident #1 suffered a fractured knee cap when she fell to floor while being transferred by Hoyer Lift by one nurse’s aide when correct protocol demanded that all transfers be done with the assistance of two of the nursing home staff. The head nurse and aide denied that she fell and tried to cover up the incident. Proof was found in a video that showed only one aide entering the room prior to Resident #1 coming out of the room by wheelchair and by our client’s telling her story that day to a social worker who heard her crying out in pain.

In addition to her knee fracture this poor woman also suffered a Stage IV bed sore. By careful analysis of both the nursing home’s records and inpatient hospital records over a year’s time, an experienced Philadelphia injury attorney in our firm was able to demonstrate that the decubitus ulcer was allowed to go from Stage II to a chronic infected Stage IV ulcer without proper preventative treatment such as regular repositioning and special bedding. The case settled for well over $100,000 despite the fact that Resident#1 suffered from chronic pain unrelated to her knee fracture and bed sore.

Resident #2 suffered a fractured hip, needing open reduction internal fixation with a rod when she fell out of bed when being turned for bed bathing. Again there was only one aide when there should have been two, one on each side of the bed. The bed rail failed to lock and our poor client was pushed off the side of the bed. She remained on the floor with a broken hip for over an hour before adequate help arrived. Again careful examination of records showed that this was not the first time the bed rail had gone down unexpectedly. The case settled for close to six figures.

In a 4-2 majority opinion, the Court in Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center and Healthsouth Corp., made it clear that the strict standards for expert testimony in a professional malpractice case under the MCare Act apply only when opinions are rendered against physicians.

In Freed, the majority written by Justice Debra Todd held that a person “need only possess greater expertise within the ordinary range of training, knowledge, intelligence, or experience” to qualify as an expert witness. Therefore, a nurse could offer her opinion that the care rendered by nurses was negligent, as it fell below the standard of care in the nursing profession AND that the negligent nursing care was the cause of injury and harm to the plaintiff.

In so ruling, the High Court expressly overruled the 1997 case of Flanagan v. Labe that had precluded such testimony as allegedly violative of the intent of the Legislature in promulgating the nursing licensing statute. This precedent was argued to be necessary in order to follow the dictates of the MCARE Act. Justice Todd declared that the express limitations of the MCARE Act had to be strictly construed and, since its language was limited to liability against physicians, it could not be extended to nurses in a case involving nursing care. Nevertheless, in a footnote Justice Todd emphasized that the current decision did not permit a nurse to act as an expert witness in medical professional liability cases against physicians.

This is an important case and will hopefully instruct the Bench and Bar on who may as an expert witness in a professional liability case and the strict construction that must be applied to the limitations imposed by the MCare Act in medical malpractice cases brought in Philadelphia and throughout Pennsylvania against physicians.

The Philadelphia injury lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis have been handling medical malpractice cases for decades and are here to evaluate your potential cases with free consultations, make an experienced review of appropriate records and secure appropriate expert witnesses to help you win your case throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Lawyers are right to carefully examine claims for medical negligence. The cost of bringing such claims is very high, with the need for expert reports and testimony. If you bring your claim to the experienced Philadelphia medical malpractice attorneys at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis, you can be assured that it will be carefully investigated and if accepted vigorously and competently litigated and if necessary tried before a jury.

Our Pennsylvania medical negligence lawyers have achieved multi-million dollar verdicts. We have recently settled a medical malpractice case for one of our clients for more than $2 million dollars. Be assured that while the number of cases filed has gone down, good cases as determined by an experienced Philadelphia injury lawyer can both be settled and won in court.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday (4/21/09) in Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing that bystanders could recover under strict products liability theory and that it was error for the trial court to grant summary judgment because the injured plaintiff was not the intended user or purchaser. There was a genuine issue of fact over whether an alternative design would have prevented the injuries. In that case, a four-year old was injured when a lawn mower operated by her grandfather, went over her foot which was eventually amputated. The lawn tractor’s design was claimed to be defective and was unreasonably dangerous.

By so ruling, the Third Circuit predicted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, as other states had done, would adopt section 2 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, replacing the old 402A standard, extending strict liability to the manufacturer or distributor of a defectively-designed product to any foreseeable person, not just the purchaser or ultimate user.

This decision is good news! The Philadelphia product liability attorneys at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis have successfully handled hundreds of design and manufacturing defect cases, both under negligence and products liability claims. Our lawyers have fought for the rights of injured plaintiffs and welcome this fair and long overdue decision making it clear that a bystander or any foreseeable person should be able to recover for his or her injuries.

The Philadelphia product liability and drug injury attorneys at Pomerantz, Perlberger & Lewis LLP are currently bringing suit against Merck for a woman who now is confined to a wheel chair in a nursing home due to a series of femur (thigh bone) fractures that could not be adequately repaired. Once an active “young for her age” vibrant woman, our client now suffers from chronic pain and disability.

It is believed that long term use of Fosamax causes a loss of blood flow to the bone, leading to death or necrosis of the bone tissue and consequently fractures. This was first discovered in cancer patients undergoing dental procedures who suffered jaw fractures. However there are now numerous cases of femur fractures occurring when there was no accident. In the case of our plaintiff, she was simply standing when her leg collapsed. It is ironic that a drug touted to strengthen bone will weaken one of the thickest and strongest bones in our bodies causing collapse.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the drug industry's attempt in the case of Wyeth v. Levine to limit the rights of plaintiffs to bring products liabilty against drug manufacturers and suppliers. Wyeth wanted the courts to rule that, because the FDA approves a drug and its warning labels, state law was pre-empted (impotent and powerless) to allow claims for injuries suffered by use of the drug. If successful, it would have made it impossible to sue for damages caused by a defective drug or inadequate warnings. The drug industry was optimistic it would win because the Supreme Court had already ruled that FDA approval of a medical device prevented lawsuits claiming injuries from a defectively designed device or the warnings accompanying it (Riegel v. Medtronics).

Laws have gradually moved over the last few decades from a tendency to protect consumers to a protection of big business. Defendants have relentlessly whittled away at the rights given consumers in the '60s and '70s. But now -- surprisingly and most satisfyingly, the Supreme Court has said "NO" to big business! The lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis have had broad experience over decades representing plaintiffs injured by defective products and inadequate warnings. We are happy that the door has not been closed upon you!