Charlottesville Personal Injury Lawyer

Johnson & Johnson (DePuy) Stopping Production of All-Metal Hip Replacement Products

Greg Webb — Fri, 24 May 2013 07:45:00 GMT

"The decision to stop selling the hips isn’t related to safety or effectiveness, and it isn’t a recall." (Bloomberg News, 5/17, Cortez) This is the statement issued by an un-cited Johnson & Johnson spokesperson concerning its recent decision to stop production of all-metal replacement hips after August 31, 2013. (If you’re scheduled for a hip replacement this summer be sure your surgeon sees this article.) What was once a high-demand metal-on-metal hip implant, the Articular Surface Replacement (ASR), is now the contributing factor in over10,000 lawsuits being filed against J&J. Technically J&J is right, it’s not a recall as we think of it—but it’s most certainly a strong indictment by the patients with this particular implant and the surgeons who favored these models.

The New York Times reports a significant trend away from metal-on-metal replacement hips. "It is estimated that all-metal replacement hips — in which both the cup and ball of a device are made from metal — once accounted for about one in three hip implants used in the United States. However, the metal components rubbed against each other as a patient moved, creating tiny particles that could damage tissue, muscle and bone."

Typically a hip replacement is expected to last for 10 to 15 years, depending age, use, and other variables. The all-metal ASR is showing signs of deterioration after just a few years. In the face of this ‘trend’ surgeons have stopped using the J&J all-metal product in favor of replacement hips made from other materials. In 2007 the metal-on-metal hip held roughly 20% of the market both in the US and Europe—today those numbers are down to 2%. So, Johnson & Johnson is truthful in citing the falling demand as reason for discontinuing production of all-metal replacement hips. But, it’s a veiled excuse. No corporation is going to admit they’re making faulty products, particularly when that product is being surgically inserted in bodies and then failing in a way that causes physical pain and damage to bodies.

Imagine the medical costs, the stress and trauma of a surgery, weeks of rehab as you learn to walk with your new hip only to discover several years later that your new hip is damaging your body, including poisoning you with excessive levels of cobalt and chromium (heavy metals). Of course there are lawsuits.

I did a little research about hip replacement options. Each of the 4 types of product listed (see below) presents a small risk of damage to surrounding tissue and bone. It’s inevitable when we have artificial pieces of equipment inserted in our bodies. We rely on technological advances to give us better, safer products over time and we expect that older products will naturally fall out of demand. This may be a small factor in the decision made by J&J’s orthopedic division, DePuy Orthopaedics, but the lawsuits and the surgeons’ reluctance to use the product points to a more serious cause.

If you have a metal-on-metal hip implant you should follow up with your surgeon. Ask the doctor what brand of hip he used for your surgery. And, ask him to check for possible damage from a faulty hip replacement product.

If you want to read more about the types of available hip replacement options, this offers a good basic description: BoneSmart.org http://bonesmart.org/hip/hip-replacement-implant-materials/

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Greg Webb

How Many Car Recalls is Too Many? GMC’s Cadillac SUV Recall One of Many in Recent Months

Greg Webb — Thu, 23 May 2013 22:49:16 GMT

"If the parts fail, drivers could lose control of the cars, the agency (Maserati) said." Yesterday (May 22, 2013) General Motors issued a recall for 2013 Cadillac SRX SUVs for faulty wheel lug nuts. The wheels could eventually fall off. How does relatively new car model get past the safety reviews for something as basic as wheel lug nuts? This is not a complicated component part we are talking about.

GM isn’t alone in issuing recalls this year. The list includes, but isn’t limited to:

* Maserati recalls 7438 cars for rusting rear tie rod assemblies (May 20, 2013)

Chrysler recalls 5000 Jeep Wranglers, 5000 new Ram 1500s, and 469,072 Jeep Commanders and Grand Cherokees (May 13, 2013)

Mitsubishi recalls 8,263 Outlander crossovers (early May, 2013)

Toyota recalls 510,000 vehicles for air bag issues (April 29, 2013)

Honda recalls 204,000 SUVs and Minivans (April 23, 2013)

According to Car Connection, over the last several weeks millions of cars have been recalled. Are we seeing an unusual number of manufacturing mistakes, indicating a massive problem with the safety of our automobiles? Or, as the article suggests, are we simply receiving "great news for consumers and for the industry as a whole"? Car Connection cites a Detroit news source for this ‘good news’ so I’m suspicious. It may indeed be proactive rather than reactive, but the fact remains that millions of cars, in the United States, were recalled in April and May due to defects. Why aren’t automakers doing a better job? Is this sloppy workmanship, inadequate supervision or something more insidious like cutting corners to increase profits?

To check for recalls on your car go to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website: http://www.nhtsa.gov

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Greg Webb

Advanced Medical Technologies—Life Saving, Most of The Time

Greg Webb — Tue, 21 May 2013 07:45:00 GMT

Do you know what the FDA means when it issues a Class 1 recall? It is “a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.” The Class1 recall is the FDA’s strongest and most urgent classification of a problem with a drug, treatment, or device that falls under the scrutiny of the FDA.

In a press release dated May 2, 2013, Medtronics, Inc., a medical technology corporation (a member of the NYSE) issued an Urgent Medical Device Correction notification after receiving a Class 1 recall notification from the FDA for its Deep Brain Stimulator. The recall came in February, the public learned about it in May.

The Deep Brain Stimulator (DBS) is one of many biotechnical medical devices manufactured by Medtronics for use in the treatment of cardiovascular and neurological diseases, diabetes, and other medical conditions. “DBS uses a surgically implanted medical device, similar to a pacemaker, to deliver mild electrical pulses to precisely targeted areas of the brain.” (Medtronics PR, 5/2) The defective device is used in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease and other neurological conditions. There is a “potentially life-threatening flaw” having to do with the wires, or leads, on the end of the piece being inserted in the brain. See the Medtronics, Inc. press release for more details.

I love how the press release states that the “lead replacement may be required or optimal therapy may not be achieved.” They make it sound as simple as replacing a cracked screw cap or putting in new batteries. Not something that might warrant a FDA Class1 recall!

As with many recalls, there are lots of questions we should be asking. Did this recall notice get shared with Parkinson’s patients and their families? What procedures does the FDA use to monitor a company once a major recall notice has been issued? And, how is Medtronic following up with each of the 1,598 devices distributed between 04/2006 and 02/28/2013?

Have people been at risk since 2006? Did someone just discover the flaw some 7 years later? If I read the FDA recall correctly, remember I’m a lawyer not a doctor, the severity of the recall indicates that there is a reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences or death. A little ‘setscrew’ on electrode 3 could cause a problem sufficient to severely damage or kill the patient being treated.

It’s not without irony that I share this self-descriptor from Medtronics;
“Medtronic, Inc. is engaged in medical technology - alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for millions of people worldwide.”

I’m sure the people at Medtronics, like many other cutting edge technology companies, are doing wonderful work. They are creating machines to treat diseases our parents never heard of, or hoped to survive. Lives are being saved, diseases lessened in severity, and people have new hope for a better, longer life.

But it is scary to realize that even the most sophisticated and medically advanced treatments can be dependent on the smallest piece of equipment. Our lives hang in the balance regardless of how smart our doctors are or how sophisticated the equipment used to treat our bodies. As with all of life, our health is a balancing act. We want to go about our day-to-day tasks with a sense of security and a lack of fear—trusting the experts in charge of our medical health. But we have to remain vigilant about who we allow to treat us, how they do their job, what medications we’re given and what kind of equipment we’re being treated with.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Greg Webb

Distracted Driving and Changing Habits: What Kind of Driver Are You?

Greg Webb — Tue, 14 May 2013 07:45:00 GMT

The 2014 Hyundai models are being promoted right now. Just last week I heard one of their ads that focuses on their Blue Link technology, which allows for hands-free texting features. Most new cars have some form of sophisticated wireless technology, but I happened to hear this particular one, so I’m use Hyundai as my example; “Blue Link is about fun and it’s about safety. Location sharing and hands-free texting lets you stay in touch with your friends while traffic updates help you find the best way to get to where you are going… Most importantly, and most impressively, the Blue Link SOS Emergency Assistance service can detect when you have been in a collision, locate your position and send the help you need. “

Now that many states are banning texting while driving there’s been a rush to find ways to allow us to continue texting and talking while we’re driving a car. This new hands-free technology is being marketed as a safer product. Ironically, the very technology that can send emergency assistance is the technology that may cause you to need assistance—when you get so distracted trying to send a hands-free text that you crash your car.

The best way to be safe on the road? It’s simple. You just drive, keeping your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road. You don’t ‘stay in touch with your friends or send texts. You don’t search for a restaurant while you’re in rush-hour traffic. You don’t check the weather or comb your hair. You don't program your GPS. You focus every bit of your attention on the road, your driving and the people around you.

Our job when we operate a motor vehicle is to get from point A to point B safely.

Why are Americans obsessed with multi-tasking? For years we have existed and even evolved as a society without the ability to call home or the office as we drive. Have we become so narcissistic that we think people can’t function without us for the length of time it takes to drive from point A to point B? We are selfish. We believe whatever we are doing is of the utmost importance, that it cannot wait, and that it is all of the other drivers who are unsafe and drive like idiots.

Last month was Distracted Driving Awareness Month but the issue of distracted drivers and car accidents is a year-round, 24/7 issue. A recent story reported that hands-free texting is just as dangerous as manually texting with your cell while driving. In both cases, the distraction of trying to verbalize or type in a text message is enough to put you at risk of an accident. So this new technology that is being promoted by Hyundai - and probably other auto manufacturers, if not now, then soon - as a safer alternative is simply another distraction—and just as dangerous.

Let’s step away from the cell phone issue to examine the larger issue of distracted driving. What does it mean? Anything is a distraction—adjusting your mirrors, turning around to discipline children, using your navigation system, or searching for a radio station. Each of those incidents takes your eyes off of the road. And in those few seconds you miss the car in front of you that stops suddenly. You don’t see the patch of black ice, or the child darting out, or the deer in the interstate highway. You aren’t focused. And, you’re putting yourself, your family and everyone else on the road in jeopardy.

What could possibly be more important when you are driving than protecting lives? That important business call? Probably not.

The National Safety Council believes that cell phone related accidents are underreported. There is no snapshot of what happens seconds before an accident occurs—whether it’s phone usage or something less obvious. In my law practice almost all of the auto accident cases I see are related to distracted driving of some nature, whether it be cognitive, manual or visual. It’s sad and it’s a crime, literally and figuratively, that deaths happen due to something as banal as sending a text message - or grabbing for that cell phone.

In 2011 there were more than 32,000 traffic deaths in the US. Only 385 were listed as involving phones. But we do know that accidents from distracted driving are underreported. And we know that failing to focus our complete attention to the road when we’re driving can cause accidents and kill someone.

Two country music mega-stars, Tim McGraw and Taylor Swift, are attempting to highlight the dangers of distracted driving in their song "Highway Don't Care". See the video on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/TimMcGraw

So what are you doing to become a safer driver? I have had to work on changing my habits, my way of thinking, when I drive. I shared a few suggestions in an earlier article, April is National Distracted Driving Awareness Month-Are you Driving Safely?

Think about it and try to change your habits if the shoe fits.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Greg Webb

More Ambien (zolpidem) Risks For Women Come to Light

Greg Webb — Tue, 07 May 2013 07:45:00 GMT

Are you reading the inserts that come with prescription drugs? The pages of fine print about side effects, precautions and potential drug reactions? You should be reading, particularly if you’re taking sleeping aids like Ambien or the generic version zolpidem.

Last week ABC and CBS news reported about an alarming increase in the number of patients seen in the ER, as a result of taking zolpidem medications. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that zolpidem, Ambien's active ingredient, was connected to roughly 19,500 ER visits in 2010 compared with 6,111 in 2005. Half of all ER visits tied to zolpidem in 2010 involved another drug. Anti-anxiety medications and narcotic pain relievers intensify the sedative effects of drugs like Ambien.

The FDA expresses specific concern about women, whose adverse reactions to zolpidem have risen substantially in the last several years. From 2005 to 2010 there was a 274% increase in number of women in the ER because of the medication—68% of all cases.

Women clear the drug from their system more slowly than men, putting them at increased risk. The extended-release form of the drug is considered more ‘worrisome’ according to the FDA statement. The FDA recommends doctors lower dosages for women and men. (CBS News 5/2)

An article in Chronic Neuroimmune Diseases provides the historical context on women and drug studies, helping put the Ambien risks for women into perspective:

“Historically, women have been excluded from many clinical trials for a number of reasons. These include a perceived difficulty in recruiting and retaining women for studies, the confounding effects of female hormonal changes, and a desire to protect a potential fetus. Because of the last reason, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) further exacerbated the situation in 1977, when it barred women of childbearing age from clinical trials. Hence, for nearly a decade and a half, many medical research studies, including breast cancer trials, were done almost entirely on men.

The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, mandating the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials. In the same year, the FDA rescinded its restrictions on the participation of women of childbearing age.”

What does that mean for women? There’s still a good chance that your doctor is prescribing medications in dosages based on male clinical trials. The concerns about Ambien and zolpidem reflect the severity of this issue—not enough is known about how a female body reacts to medicines to accurately determine how much of a drug is enough or too much.

In the US we tend to regard doctors as God-like figures who know, with absolute certainty, what’s best for us. We often follow without questioning. Yes, the doctor is trained and does know what medications will help us, but do not hesitate to question your physician in order to ensure you getting the best medication for your unique needs. Become your own medical advocate, or designate someone for that role. When you get a new medication, read the insert in the box and be aware of potential side effects. Ask the pharmacist if there could be possible reactions with existing medications. With age, changes in health, and other conditions like weight gain/loss or pregnancy, it’s a good idea to ask the doctor to reevaluate medications and dosages.

If you’re one of the 44 million people taking Ambien or zolpidem-based sleep medications (ABC News 5/1) in combination with painkillers or antidepressants, you should consult your doctor today.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Greg Webb

Jack3d, A Dietary Supplement-Untested, Unregulated and Potentially Lethal

Greg Webb — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:45:00 GMT

There are over 8000 unregulated dietary supplements on the market, untested and ostensibly safe for use. According to a 2011 study released by the FDA, more than half of U.S. adults used a dietary supplement between 2003 and 2006, compared to 40% between 1988 and 1994.

On April 11, 2013, the FDA issued a warning about supplements containing DMAA, dimethylamylamine, a stimulant. The warning came in advance of a story aired on NBC’s Rock City, about a young soldier who died of a heart attack as a result of using Jack3d, a product that contains DMAA.

DMAA is most commonly used in supplements promising weight loss, muscle building and performance enhancement; it can elevate blood pressure and could lead to cardiovascular problems, including heart attack, shortness of breath and tightening of the chest.

DMAA provides ‘that little edge’ to make workouts better. The product in question, Jack3d (pronounced Jacked) is manufactured by USP Labs. There is no law prohibiting it and no legislation that gives the FDA authority to do more than issue a strong statement about the dangers of dietary supplements containing DMAA.

In a written statement to NBC News, Michael Petruzzello, on behalf of USP Labs, writes, “DMAA is a safe and lawful dietary ingredient. We stand by the scientific evidence presented and believe there is no reason to withdraw it from the market.”

GNC is one of the nutritional stores that sells Jack3d. They do not feel responsible for ‘policing’ the items they sell. In a statement to Rock Center they said they rely on the manufacturers to make sure drugs are in compliance with the law and safe for humans to take.

A US law passed in 1994 declared dietary supplements exempt from pre-market FDA approval. The FDA’s warning last week stated, “FDA's authority over dietary supplements is very different from its authority over drugs and other medical products. FDA is required to undertake what are usually lengthy scientific and legal steps in order to force the removal of dietary supplements that may be unsafe or are otherwise illegal if companies don't voluntarily comply.”

For now, the FDA can only issue a warning. And GNC will keep Jack3d on its shelves because USP Labs says their product is safe. USP Labs and other manufacturers of dietary supplement remain free of the kind of scrutiny drug makers must go through. The burden rests on these businesses, the ones manufacturing and profiting from the production of these so-called ‘safe’ dietary supplements, to respond appropriately. In the absence of legal oversight, it’s left to businesses like GNC and USP Labs to weight the considerations of human life versus making a profit.

Bottom line: we have hundreds of manufacturers, supported by big box businesses like GNC, producing and selling unregulated dietary supplements to consumers. DMAA, the ingredient in Jack3d, is banned in nine countries across the world, including Canada. Yet, you or I can walk into a store and buy a product that has already been connected with the illness or death of 86 individuals.

There has to be a balance between neglect, overreaching government regulations and judicious oversight. We should, however, expect more when it comes to the safety of American citizens - our families, our friends, our loved ones.

For more on the hazards of DMAA, see a previous article this writer published a year ago at: http://charlottesville.legalexaminer.com/defective-and-dangerous-products/dmaawhat-is-it-and-why-hasnt-it-been-banned-in-the-us.aspx?googleid=300874 or visit http://www.michiehamlett.com.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Greg Webb

Big (Money) Pharma Wins Again: FDA Bars Generic OxyContin

Greg Webb — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:20:43 GMT

In 2010, the FDA approved a reformulated version of the drug OxyContin. Purdue Pharma, the lab that produces the narcotic painkiller, developed a safer form of the drug—one that would be more difficult for people to use illegally (by inhaling or crushing and mixing with water). At that time, he FDA ruled that the new version of OxyContin has the same therapeutic benefits of the earlier drug, an important piece in the approval process.

This week, some 3 years later, the FDA reported it would not allow generic versions of OxyContin, based on the original formulation, to be released. A victory for Purdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin—a defeat for the consumer.

We applaud any drug manufacturer’s efforts to help reduce risks related to medications. But, in this case, is the motive patient safety or greed?

Generic drugs are often significantly less expensive for the consumer. A generic drug is not available until the original patent on a medication has expired, often years after the drug is approved. Generic medications don’t have to undergo the strenuous testing required of new medications. The companies have no need to market or advertise these generic versions of well-known drugs. Therefore, we’re able to get these medications at a lower cost. In the case of OxyContin, one 40 mg tablet cost $6. That price is expected to increase now, according to the New York Times. And, now there will be no generic version available for several years.

What happened in the case of OxyContin? The FDA classifies this newly reformulated version of the drug as a new drug. The FDA will "…not accept or approve any abbreviated new drug applications (generics) that rely upon the approval of original OxyContin." (FDA Press Release)

Just as the patent for OxyContin was ready to expire, opening the way of less-expensive generic versions, Pharma Pharmacy suddenly announced a new ‘tamper-proof’ product. Yes, the potential for abuse will be lessened, but this new and improved version keeps the monopoly on the drug in place. Coincidence? The FDA does not’t think so, "While companies like Purdue Pharma (and Endo) insist the public’s health is their main concern, others note that producers introduced tamper-resistant versions of their products just as the drugs were about to lose patent protection.

In court papers filed in response to a lawsuit filed by Endo, the F.D.A. described the company’s action as a "thinly veiled attempt to maintain its market share and block generic competition." "(NY Times, 4/17/2013)

The FDA report on OxyContin and generics shared this statistic from the Congressional Budget Office: "Generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 to $10 billion a year at retail pharmacies."

Are we safer with this new and improved version of OxyContin? No. Those who use drugs illegally will always find a way to get their fix. The whole controversy ignores the question of our need for strong narcotic painkillers and whether they’re being over prescribed.

The end result of this ‘safety’ reformulation will effectively shut out the generic drug producers for several more years. We, the consumers, will pay the price, out of our own pockets. Big Pharma wins again.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Greg Webb

Congressperson Reintroduces PAMTA Prompted by Concern About CRE

Greg Webb — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:00:00 GMT

In March, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York) reintroduced “The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act” (also known as PAMTA). The full title of the bill is: “To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to preserve the effectiveness of medically important antimicrobials used in the treatment of human and animal diseases.”

Rep. Slaughter is currently the only microbiologist in Congress, and this bill she has introduced for the fourth time since 2007 would prevent the non-therapeutic uses of medically important antibiotics in food animal production... as antibiotics in poultry feed, for instance. Why is this a good idea? Use of antibiotics in animal and poultry feed contributes to the human immune system’s inability to resist certain harmful viruses, such as Carbapenem Resistant Enterovirus (CRE). In addition, some viruses have a tendency to change and mutate, depending upon a host of factors--and if or when they become resistant to antibiotics used to quash them, then it’s back to the drawing board for medical science not only presenting a challenge for populations, communities, hospitals and health professionals--but raising the costs of the cure.

The current bill covers eight (8) classes of antibiotics which Rep. Slaughter wants banned from non-therapeutic uses. The legislation also defines what non-therapeutic uses are, “to ensure that any use of medically important antibiotics outside of treatment of a sick animal is not permitted.” (Food Safety News, March 15, 2013) If enacted, this is one piece of legislation that should be very good for the public health, it would seem; i.e., people should not receive antibiotics which they have not been prescribed-- and when the poultry or livestock consume feed with antibiotics, those antibiotics--and their effects--can be passed on to the consumer who eats the meat or drinks the milk.

According to the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) recent survey, during the past ten years, there has been a “significant increase in cephalosporin resistance, especially on chicken and turkey products.” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently decided to “limit the off-label use of cephalosporins in food animals.” (Food Safety News, March 15, 2013)

Currently, one government legislation-tracking website gives this bill a 1% chance of making it out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to which it was referred for review. The World Health Organization (WHO), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the National Academy of Sciences, along with 450 other outside groups, support this legislation. But it appears, as with other legislation promulgated in the best interests of the American people, it may simply languish in committee, as the current Congress's legislative gridlock continues.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Greg Webb

Did You Sign Your Rights Away Today? Arbitration: Read The Fine Print

Greg Webb — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:45:00 GMT

No one really wants to start a lawsuit or end up in court. We want to buy a product, contract for a service, do our job and go about our day safely. The general assumption is that things will go smoothly. So we relax, safe in the knowledge that justice can be obtained, if needed.

Ladies and gentlemen, have you read the fine print lately? You may no longer have the right to go to court if something goes terribly wrong. A 2008 study conducted by the University of Michigan’s Journal of Law Reform studied 21 major corporations and found that 93% of their employment contracts and 77% of their consumer contracts contained compulsory arbitration clauses. Sign and you’ve waived your right to a court hearing and agreed to go through their arbitration process.

Arbitration means that the two parties, the corporation and you, agree to allow a "neutral" third party to help resolve their conflict. It’s supposed to be cheaper, faster, and less complicated than going to court. But, over the last 10 years, rulings at the Supreme Court level have sided with big corporations and arbitration has become more prevalent and less ‘neutral’. Arbitrators may be appointed at the will of the corporation and are not obligated to comply with any rulings or legislation. The concept of fairness has vanished. And, appealing the arbitrator's ruling is extremely difficult.

In 2007, Public Citizen took a look at National Arbitration Forum (NAF) lawyer, Joseph Nardulli of California. In one day Nardulli settled, or disposed of, 68 cases. All cases were bank related and in every case, all 68, he ruled in favor of the bank. How could that happen? NAF calls them ‘document hearings’, but there is no hearing. There is no testimony; most of the time the parties involved aren’t even present. This is a case of one man reading, theoretically, all the documents and making a decision.

Some Consumer Options When Faced With the Arbitration Clause

It feels unjust and it is. The concept of forced or Binding Mandatory Arbitration (BMA) can be viewed as a violation of the Seventh Amendment.

Your first step is to thoroughly read the contract before you sign. If you don’t like what you read, get up and walk out—go find another business, another bank, or another credit card that isn’t restricting your rights. It may be difficult to do, but it’s worth looking. Alternately, you can strike through the arbitration language on the contract, sign the contract, and send it back, which modifies the agreement in the signatory’s behalf. If the matter is extremely important to you, your best option may be to consult with an attorney experienced in commercial litigation. Spending some money up front in this fashion may save you money later on.

If you find yourself wronged by a corporation, and you are not bound by a BMA, you can file in small claims court, where you can hire a lawyer and have your case heard by a judge, not a private sector arbitration professional.

There are organizations that help consumers facing arbitration. Citizen Works (www.citizenworks.org), Public Citizen (www.citizen.org/arbitration), the National Consumer Law Center (www.nclc.org) and Public Justice (www.publicjustice.net) are groups that provide information and resources for citizens who need help in the face of forced arbitration.

As a citizen you can take on corporate wrong doings, but the initial burden is on you to read the fine print and say no to binding mandatory arbitration.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Greg Webb

3.4M Vehicle Recall by Honda, Toyota, Mazda and Nissan For Air Bags

Greg Webb — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:35:01 GMT

A huge recall is about to commence by the big four Japanese automobile makers of approximately 3.4 million vehicles due to defective airbags. All the airbags were purchased from the same manufacturer, Takata Corp, “the world’s second-largest supplier of airbags and seatbelts.” The reason for this recall by Honda, Toyota, Mazda and Nissan, is the airbags in the vehicles, most of which were manufactured between 2001 and 2003, are believed to be able to deploy with enough pressure and force (CNN News, Early Start, 4/11/13) to potentially cause injury or fire.

To date, none of the companies has been made aware of any deaths or injuries caused by the defect; however, the news media has noted this recall by the large Japanese car dealers is due to “an abundance of caution.” (www.CNN.com ) This will be the second largest recall of foreign automobile makers in the past ten years.

The cars recalled include Toyota’s Camry and Corolla, Nissan’s Maxima and Honda’s Civic. Takata Corp. also supplies airbags and seatbelts to Daimler AG (maker of Mercedes-Benz) and Ford Motor Co. Some non-Japanese car manufacturers also purchased the defective airbags, but the companies were not identified. (NBC News, 4/11/13). The airbags themselves were manufactured in Mexico by Takata from 2000-2002.

For more information on automobile recalls visit: http://www.nhtsa.gov

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Greg Webb