As a recent article sadly reported, a construction worker was killed in a workplace accident in downtown Indianapolis, Indiana. At the time of the accident, the victim was working to remove a stretch of transit tracks for a demolition and land repurposing company. Then, a section of the track suddenly fell, which killed the construction worker. The cause of the track collapse remains under investigation.

Can You Sue Your Employer for A Workplace Accident?

If you suffered injuries while performing a job for your employer, your first course of action will likely be pursuing workers’ compensation rather than suing the employer. Indiana law requires most employers to provide workers’ compensation. Often, an employee cannot sue their employer for on-the-job injuries if they receive workers’ compensation. On the other hand, if fault for the workplace accident lies with a third party rather than the employer, an employee may be able to sue the third party for their injuries. Examples of a liable third party include manufacturers of construction equipment that injured the employee or an individual with no tie to the employer who acted negligently.

more What Are the Differences Between Workers’ Compensation And Third-Party Negligence Claims?

Because Indiana law requires certain employers to provide workers’ compensation, the employee does not have to prove negligence or fault on the employer’s part to receive workers’ compensation benefits. On the other hand, to hold a third party liable for a workplace injury, employees must prove the required elements of negligence or strict liability depending on the claim. To prove negligence, the more common of the two, the accident victim must prove the defendant possessed a duty of care, violated that duty, caused the workplace accident, and that the victim suffered an injury as a consequence.

Additionally, the deadline to file a workers’ compensation claim is much stricter than a negligence lawsuit. According to the Workers’ Compensation Board of Indiana, injured employees must report an accident and file a workers’ compensation claim within thirty days. If employees do not take the necessary steps to meet the deadline, the Board may deny their claim. If employees have a dispute with their employer about their workers’ compensation, they must file an Application for Adjustment within two years of the last date of compensation paid or from the date of the injury. Conversely, Indiana law requires plaintiffs to file personal injury claims within two years of the accident. That said, negligence claims require more research, writing, and preparation than a typical workers’ compensation claim. They also involve complicated questions of fact and law. An experienced Indiana personal injury attorney can help workplace accident victims pursue a negligence lawsuit to recover damages.

Have You Been Injured in an Indiana Workplace Accident?

If you or a loved one has been injured in an Indiana workplace accident, contact Padove Law today to discuss your next steps. Attorney Burton A. Padove has decades of hands-on experience representing clients in all types of personal injury claims throughout the state of Indiana. Attorney Padove can help you pursue a claim for damages against all responsible parties to recover the compensation you deserve. For a free initial consultation, call our office at 219-836-2200.

Food poisoning and tainted food discoveries often come after several people become sick from consuming the product. However, in some situations, products come under scrutiny when the public becomes concerned about ingredients and safety standards. One such cause for concern revolves around heavy metals found in various baby food items and juices. Although, heavy metals are naturally found in soil, the amount found in many baby food products is concerning to many.

Heavy metals in baby food products is not a novel issue, as it has been the topic of various research studies over the past decade. However, following a 2019 study and a congressional report released in early February, many parents are reevaluating how they feed their children. Several popular baby food companies participated in the study; however, many declined to cooperate.

The findings revealed that many baby foods and juices contain dangerous arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury levels. Although these metals are present in our environment and soil, some agricultural and manufacturing practices increase the amount found in foods. The study acknowledged the challenges associated with removing heavy metals from food. However, some chemical methods and additives can reduce the level of metals. Although the data is limited, studies suggest that these metals can be dangerous to the cognitive development of babies and children.

Parents who believe that their child has suffered injuries because of a tainted baby food product, should contact an attorney to discuss their rights and remedies. In addition to tainted baby food, many infant and child products can pose dangers. Parents must remain vigilant regarding the items their children frequently consume or play with.

Indiana products liability laws provide recourse to those who suffer injuries because of dangerous items. These lawsuits usually fall under strict product liability, negligence, or breach of warranty claims. It is essential to contact an attorney because establishing liability and apportioning fault requires a thorough understanding of complex tort laws.

Have You Suffered Injuries Because of a Tainted Food Product?

If you or someone you love has been injured or died due to a dangerous, defective, or tainted food product, contact Padove Law. Attorney Burton A. Padove, provides Indiana injury victims with compassion, respect, and zealous representation. Padove Law represents clients in various Indiana defective product claims, as well as those involving premises liability, slip-and-falls, motor vehicle accidents, and more. Through Attorney Padove’s representation, his clients have recovered significant compensation for their medical expenses, ongoing medical treatment and therapy, lost wages and benefits, loss of companionship, and pain and suffering, and more. Contact Padove Law at 219-836-2200, to schedule a free initial consultation to discuss your Indiana injury case.

Many consumers began getting sick from May to mid-June. The affected consumers ranged from 16 years old to 92 years old. The CDC explained that the microscopic parasite often contaminates water and food resulting in Cyclosporiasis. This intestinal infection typically causes diarrhea, cramping, and fatigue. Although these conditions may be treated with antibiotics, medically fragile individuals may suffer severe and long-term consequences, including hospitalization and death.

Microbiologists explain that they are not positive what causes these outbreaks, but it is likely related to the quality of the water used to farm the produce. In many cases, the water is contaminated with fecal matter. However, regardless of what caused the parasite, there is a clear indication that there was a breakdown in quality-control. In these situations, Indiana injury victims should hold all liable parties responsible for their injuries and resulting damages.

Food companies often issue a recall after a product causes an outbreak of an illness. The most common illnesses are related to E. coli, hepatitis A, listeria, salmonella, or cyclosporine. These companies should engage in measures to issue an effective recall. This includes contacting retailers and private consumers. However, issuing a recall is not enough to absolve them from liability. On the other hand, a recall does not automatically impute liability on a food company. Injury victims must be able to prove that they suffered damages because of the recalled food item. This includes presenting evidence of personal injuries, medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Product liability cases are often complicated, and it is essential that injury victims or their families contact an Indiana product liability attorney to discuss their situation.

Have You Suffered Injuries Because of a Defective Product?

If you or someone you love has suffered injuries because of a defective product, contact Padove Law to discuss your rights. Attorney Burton A. Padove has a long and successful history of representing Indiana injury victims in their claims for damages. He possesses the tools, resources, and skills necessary to address and overcome the unique challenges these cases present. In addition to Indiana product liability claims, Attorney Padove also represents clients in other claims stemming from car accidents, truck accidents, workplace injuries, and slip and falls. Because we work on a contingency fee model, we will not recover any fees unless your case is successful. Contact Padove Law at 219-836-2200 to schedule a free initial consultation to discuss your personal injury case.

Under Indiana law, plaintiffs must commence their product liability actions within two years after the cause of action accrues or within ten years after the delivery of the device to the original user. However, if the claim accrues at least eight years after but less than ten years of delivery, the action may be filed within two years after the claim accrues. There is a specific exception for asbestos-related claims, and plaintiffs will often try and carve out additional exceptions based on case law. However, these exceptions undergo strict analysis and require a thorough understanding of Indiana product liability laws.

For example, recently, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion addressing a plaintiff’s request to apply an additional exception to the statute of repose. In that case, the plaintiff suffered injuries after using a defective machine at work. His employer purchased the product in 2003, which was over ten years before the plaintiff filed his lawsuit. The plaintiff and defendant agreed that the claim was time-barred, but the plaintiff argued that his claim falls within an exception. He cited previous court discussions that addressed instances when a product undergoes a transformation, in effect, creating a new product. The plaintiff contended that courts should determine the statute of limitations from the time a product undergoes a repair, refurbishment, or reconstruction. He reasoned that this transformation would render the product “new,” and as such, the clock should begin running from that time.

The court found that, although there is some case law to substantiate the plaintiff’s reasoning, the court must look to the plain english of the statute as well as the outlined exceptions. The plaintiff cited the silence of the legislature on the issue, concluding that this silence means that additional exceptions exist. However, the appellate court found that silence does not amount to validating the exception. Further, they found that carving out a new exception would require courts to engage in lengthy and complicated analyses of what property changes render a product “new.” Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff did not meet an existing exception, and his case was time-barred.

Have You Suffered Injuries and Damages Because of a Defective Product?

If someone you know or you have suffered serious injuries because of a defective product or device, you should contact the Indiana product liability attorneys at Padove Law. Attorney Burton A. Padove has a long-standing history of successfully representing Indiana injury victims in their claims for damages. He has enthusiastically represented clients in all types of lawsuits, including, car accidents, trucking accidents, wrongful death, medical malpractice, and product liability. He possesses the unique skills and experience necessary to handle even the most complex lawsuits. Contact Padove Law at 219-836-2200 to discuss your legal matter.

The couple received recall notices for their helmets a few months after the accident. The company that distributed the helmets notified consumers that helmets did not conform to the Department of Transportation standards. The company also warned that the helmet might not protect users in the event of a collision. The couple purchased their helmets two years before the recall from two different sellers. In response to the recall notice, the couple filed a products liability lawsuit against several parties, including the manufacturer of the helmets and the companies that sold the helmets. In their suit against the helmet company, the couple alleged that the accident resulted from a design and manufacturing defect. They also alleged that the company did not comply with federal safety standards and participated in negligent recall practices.

To establish liability in Indiana products liability lawsuits, plaintiffs must be able to prove that a party that manufactures, distributes, or sells a product knew or should have known that a product was unreasonably dangerous, either because of a design or manufacturer defect. The Indiana Products Liability Act requires that plaintiffs produce expert testimony in regards to causation. If a plaintiff cannot establish this crucial element of their claim, the court will grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

In this case, the couple argued that the faulty helmets exacerbated their injuries. They produced evidence of the recall and the severity of their injuries. However, they did not comply with the Indiana Products Liability Act because they did not present expert testimony. The law requires that they provide expert testimony to prove the causation element of their lawsuit. The couple did not prove that a defect in their helmet worsened their injury.

Conversely, the defendants not only provided an expert, but their expert opined that their injuries would have been the same even if they were wearing a helmet that complied with all safety standards. The court explained that the couple’s failure to provide an expert witness was fatal to their case. Indiana plaintiffs must comply with the Indiana Products Liability Act and provide an expert witness to prove their case.

Have You Been Injured By a Dangerous or Defective Product?

If you or a loved one suffered injuries because of a defectively designed or manufactured product you should contact Indiana personal injury attorney Burton A. Padove. Attorney Padove handles Indiana products liability lawsuits as well as injury lawsuits arising under Illinois law. He has extensive experiencing navigating the various complexities of products liability lawsuits and can ensure that your case complies with all procedural and evidentiary rules. If you are successful, you may be entitled to monetary compensation for the injuries you sustained. Contact Attorney Padove today at 219-836-2200 to schedule your free initial consultation.

According to the court’s opinion, a semi-truck was backing up on a job site when it ran over a construction foreman. The foreman died as a result of his injuries. The foreman’s wife (“the plaintiff”) filed a wrongful death case against the defendant, under a theory of product liability.

The defendant manufactured the “glider kit,” which consists of the frame and body of the truck. To turn the glider kit into a completed semi-truck, the purchaser must install an engine, transmission, and exhaust system. The glider kit did not come with any back-up cameras or alarms. However, a purchaser could opt to add those items onto the kit at an additional cost.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant manufacturer was liable for failing to install necessary safety equipment on the glider kit to prevent the type of accident that resulted in her husband’s death. In response, the defendant argued that it only manufactured a component part, and was not responsible for the final product. The defendant claimed that the decision to purchase a back-up alarm or camera rested with the purchaser, who would know best whether such features were necessary depending on the intended use of the final product.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. The plaintiff appealed, and was successful in having the case reversed. However, then the defendant appealed up to the Indiana Supreme Court.

The High Court’s Decision

The Indiana Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument, determining that the plaintiff’s case should proceed to trial so a jury could determine whether the defendant was liable for the plaintiff’s loss. The court explained that the manufacturers of some component parts can safely leave the decision to the final purchaser whether certain safety features are necessary. However, the court held that was not the case here because the glider kit had only “one reasonably foreseeable use.”

The court explained that the glider kit could only become one thing – a fully functional, road-ready semi-truck – and that the defendant failed to show that such a final product was safe without the installed safety features. Because the defendant was unable to establish that its product had a reasonably foreseeable use that did not require the proposed safety feature, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment.

Consult with an Experienced Indiana Product Liability Attorney

If you or a loved one has recently been injured by a defective or dangerous product, you may be entitled to financial compensation through an Indiana product liability lawsuit. At Padove Law, Attorney Burton A. Padove dutifully represents clients in all types of Indiana injury cases, including defective product claims. With over 25 years of experience assisting clients obtain the compensation they deserve, Attorney Padove knows what it takes to succeed on behalf of his clients. To learn more, call 219-836-2200 to schedule a free consultation today.

Local news reports indicate the Indianapolis plaintiff, a medical student, sustained burns back in March, 2019, while cooking with his girlfriend. He spent months in the hospital and had to undergo numerous skin grafts and other surgeries after suffering burns on most of his upper body. He and other plaintiffs are now incensed the company refuses to recall the product and insists the cooking spray is safe.

Plaintiff was cooking when a can of the common spray, sitting near the stove top, reportedly exploded, erupting into a fire. As his girlfriend noted, “He’s a full-time med student. He’s educated. He’s very smart – and he had no idea.”

She said they know to keep cooking oil away from hot surfaces, especially away from a hot stove top. The can was far enough away to prevent a problem.

Through the independent testing of some personal injury law firms, a defect has been discovered in the way certain PAM spray cans were made, resulting in a serious safety hazard. While the manufacturer has altered the design of newer cooking spray cans, it has refused to issue a recall for those items already shipped – a move some injury lawyers are calling, “beyond irresponsible.”

Product Liability Litigation in Indiana

These kinds of cases are what are known as product liability claims, governed largely by the Product Liability Act, Indiana Code 34-20-1-1 through 34-20-9-1. These provisions of law cover claims filed by a user or consumer of products against manufacturers for physical injuries resulting from harm by a product.

These provisions hold that any company that puts a product into the stream of commerce for any reason that is defective/unreasonably dangerous will be subject to liability for resulting harm.

As product liability attorneys can explain, the law is drafted to allow sellers to be held responsible even if they took all reasonable care in the making and preparing of a product (a theory known as strict liability). However, if a plaintiff alleges defective design or inadequate warning/instruction for product use, then a plaintiff has to show the manufacturer/seller failed to use reasonable care based on the circumstances.

Products can be considered “defective” if a reasonable person handling/consuming it in the way it’s intended to be used/consumed wouldn’t anticipate such danger.

Unsafe Cooking Spray Can Design

Plaintiffs suing the food company allege the company opted for the design of cans that were susceptible to explosion because they were cheaper.

Furthermore, attorneys argue, the company refused to warn people about the very serious risks – and still refuse to issue a national recall to ensure all dangerous cans are removed from store shelves so no one else suffers serious and permanent injuries due to burns/explosions.

The company insists its cans are no more dangerous than other aerosols.

In addition to Indiana, other exploding-can burn incidents have occurred the last two years in Illinois, Texas and Utah. Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond.

After the accident, the injured worker’s employer asked another company to install a backup alarm. That company’s technician affirmed there was no alarm already on it.

Although workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy a worker has for an Indiana work injury (same goes for workers in Illinois, where this accident occurred), what is allowed is third-party liability. As Munster work injury attorneys can explain, this means that if a third-party – someone other than an employer or co-worker – was responsible for causing an injury that occurred in the course and scope of employment, that party can be held liable for negligence. Workers aren’t compensated twice, but a third-party negligence claim may entitle injured workers to collect more than they would otherwise be able to collect from workers’ compensation (which is generally limited to a portion of lost wages and medical bills).

Defective Forklift Injuries

Forklifts are large pieces of heavy machinery that can cause serious work injuries in Indiana. Forklifts that are defectively-designed or manufactured may be cause for a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer/distributor of the product. Forklifts that are not properly maintained may point to liability by the owner (if different from employer) and/or the service/maintenance company, as was the case in the 7th Circuit ruling.

Each year, an estimated 35,000 workers in the U.S. are injured and another 85 killed in forklift accidents.

In recent years, OSHA has cited or fined companies for faulty forklifts including those that:

• Had faulty brakes due to failure to perform needed repairs;
• Put workers at risk of CO poisoning (an Illinois-based manufacturer was fined $216,000 last year by OSHA for allowing workers to operate defective forklifts emitting 10 times the accepted permissible exposure limit);
• Was unsafely loaded or driven, leading to tipping and crushing injuries.

Forklifts are considered “powered industrial trucks” which are regulated per 29 CFR 1910.178.

Court Rules Forklift Maintenance Firm Not Liable

In its decision regarding liability of a forklift maintenance firm, the 7th Circuit panel noted it was the employer – not the service company – that had the final decision on whether a backup alarm should be installed. The repair company’s duty to warn (necessary to prove negligence) didn’t require that it recommend an optional safety feature, particularly when the owner of the forklift was already aware of the safety feature (which was established in discovery).

Plaintiff failed to establish that even if there was a duty of care that there was a breach. Simply knowing about a risk – one that the owner also knows about – doesn’t create an affirmative duty of care requiring the repair service to recommend installation of a device that was neither required nor requested.

Although this outcome is disappointing for the plaintiff, it’s instructive for Munster personal injury attorneys and others handling work injury claims in Indiana.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Hutchison v. Fitzgerald Equipment Co., Dec. 14, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

More Blog Entries:

Gary Truck Accident Lawsuit Claims Trucking Company Negligent, July 17, 2017, Munster Work Injury Attorney Blog

It was a disappointing outcome, but as Indiana product liability attorneys, we recognize it’s important for attorneys – and plaintiffs too – to understand what went wrong so that we can formulate a smart strategy moving forward in similar cases. Appellate court opinions on the state and federal levels are especially important to consider because they help us gauge how courts are likely to interpret other cases in the future.

Here, according to court records, the plaintiff’s physician implanted an intrauterine device called ParaGard, made by a company named Teva. About five years after the device was implanted, the plaintiff decided she was dissatisfied with it and asked her physician to remove it. The physician did so by grasping the strings of the IUD with a ring forceps and pulling down. However, in so doing, only a piece of the device was removed. Another piece broke off either prior to or during removal, and it became lodged in her uterus. The only way to remove it, her doctors opine, is for her to undergo a hysterectomy.

The plaintiff sued the product manufacturer in federal court, alleging strict product liability, strict product liability failure to warn, and a manufacturing defect. She was given a deadline for expert witness disclosures, but she made none. After the deadline passed with no expert witness disclosure, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing Indiana statute requires expert witness testimony to prove causation in product liability actions. The plaintiff’s failure to do so meant she would be unable to prove a key element of her claim. She responded that causation in this Indiana product liability action was so straightforward that no expert witness testimony would be required because it could be well understood by a lay juror. The trial court disagreed, granting the motion.

On appeal, the court noted these claims arise under the Indiana Products Liability Act, which governs all actions brought by consumers against manufacturers for physical harm caused by a product. For each of her claims, she would have to prove the injury was “proximately caused” by the defect or breach of duties that underlies her claim. State law indicates expert witness testimony is required when a certain issue isn’t within the understanding of a layperson. Causation of an injury typically falls under this umbrella. Thus, if circumstantial evidence requires the average juror to purely speculate in order to find causation, expert witness testimony is necessary.

The plaintiff insisted that proximate cause here was obvious because it involves facts that are not complicated. A juror could look at the fact of the broken medical device and clearly see that there was some error on the manufacturer’s part that caused the break. However, both the trial court and the appellate court ruled that this would require speculation by jurors. Yes, the IUD was broken, but what caused it? Was it damaged before it came into the possession of the physician who inserted it? Was it damaged during implantation? During removal?

The appellate court called this matter “far removed from situations in which the causation issue would be obvious.”

As our Indiana product liability lawyers can explain, in almost all defective product lawsuits, expert witness testimony is required to prove causation.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: Dalton v. Teva North America, June 4, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

More Blog Entries: Actual or Constructive Knowledge Necessary Element in Indiana Slip-and-Fall Lawsuit, May 16, 2018, Indiana Injury Attorney Blog

The plaintiff’s original claim to the trial court was that the product’s faulty instructions, inadequate warnings, and lack of a safety guard (or any explicit information regarding a proper safety guard) made the air-compressor tool unreasonably dangerous as manufactured. The defense countered that no reasonable jury could find the plaintiff less than 51 percent at fault for his injuries (the standard under Indiana’s comparative fault law), given each of the three defenses presented: misuse, alteration, and incurred risk. Specifically, the defense argued the plaintiff misused the product and altered the product, and there was an incurred risk for the use of the product.

The trial court ruled the plaintiff misused the grinder as a matter of law because he did not wear safety glasses. In the plaintiff’s appeal, he noted that the power tool was defective because it was sold without a safety guard, and the company gave no instruction on how to obtain or use such a guard, which was not and is not available for purchase by the company. Furthermore, the plaintiff argued the instructions didn’t warn users of the possible danger of using the tool with a cut-off wheel absent a safety guard.

Indiana Code section 34-20-2-1 holds that a product can be defective within the meaning of the Indiana Product Liability Act when there is a manufacturing flaw, a design flaw, or a failure to warn of the possible dangers in using the product. The plaintiff’s claim falls under the umbrella of the latter two.

It is true that Indiana’s comparative fault law does apply to product liability cases, which means the plaintiff’s own fault in causing the harm suffered can result in a reduction of damages – or the dismissal of the claim if his fault exceeds 51 percent. Alleged misuse of a product falls under the comparative fault principles, but it isn’t a complete defense. In this case, the defendant argued the plaintiff misused the tool by not wearing proper safety glasses, attaching and using a cutoff disc without a guard in place, and using a cutoff disc that didn’t have a solid RPM rating. The defense argued this was against the instructions it provided within the product, which the plaintiff testified he’d read before using it.

It wasn’t disputed that the plaintiff didn’t wear safety glasses, although he testified he thought his eyeglasses were sufficient protection. They were not, but as the appellate court ruled, his percentage of fault in that needs to be weighed by a jury, rather than decided by a judge as a matter of law in summary judgment. Furthermore, with regard to using the cutoff disc absent a guard, the court noted the company clearly foresaw that the tool would be used this way because it included an instruction warning individuals not to use a cutoff disc on the tool “unless safety guard is in place.” However, the tool didn’t contain a safety guard, indicate how to obtain a safety guard, or even define it. Furthermore, the company didn’t designate this “instruction” as any kind of warning that would alert the user that they should pay special attention to it.

The appellate panel ruled that based on the statutory defenses it asserted, the company wasn’t entitled to summary judgment.

If you have been injured as a result of a defective power tool or other equipment, our Indiana product liability attorneys can help you identify all possible avenues for financial compensation.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: Campbell Hausefeld v. Johnson, Dec. 29, 2017, Indiana Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries: Indiana Supreme Court Rules on Employer Liability for Employee Negligence, Nov. 1, 2017, Indiana Product Liability Lawyer Blog

Our Highland personal injury attorneys are asking all residents to take a glance at the latest recalls to help identify any dangerous products that might be in your home. Every year, thousands are injured by defective products — and hundreds of consumers are recalled by the manufacturer or the federal government. Many of these products are marketed for use by children.

Stay up to date with these recalls to help to reduce the risks of injuries.Kolcraft Strollers:

Nearly 40,000 of these products have been recalled in the U.S. and another 300 in Canada because the strollers pose serious fingertip amputation and laceration dangers. What can happen is a kid’s finger can get caught in the opening that is formed when locking and unlocking the hinge used to adjust the handlebars on the strollers. There have already been three child fingertip amputations and a number of adult injuries reported. If you have one of these strollers, you should call the company to get more information on a free repair kit. Call (800) 453-7673.

Black & Decker Coffeemakers

Nearly 160,000 Spacemaker™ 12-Cup Programmable Under-the-Cabinet Coffeemakers have been recalled by Black & Decker. What can happen is the coffee pot handle can break. When this happens, users are subject to serious cut and burn injuries. There have already been nearly 1,300 reports of the handle breaking and another 70 injury reports. If you have one of these pots, contact the company at (866) 708-7846 for a free replacement.

Downeast Concepts’ Beach Chairs:

There are nearly 15,500 folding beach chairs that are being recalled because they pose serious laceration dangers to children. The metal rivets on the chairs are exposed and can cut young ones. There have already been injuries reported to the company. If you have one of these chairs, please discontinue use and call the company for a full refund. Call (800) 343-2424.

Rigo’s Children’s Lounge Pants and Boxers:

More than 210,000 children’s Pull-On Lounge Pants and Girls Boxers have been recalled by Rigo International Inc., of Los Angeles because the clothing fails to meet the federal flammability standards for children’s sleepwear. These items pose a risk of burn injury to children. There has already been one report submitted to the company. The legs of a 9-year-old were burned in an accident. If you have any of these items, contact the company for a full refund. Call (888) 229-1292.

You’re urged to check the list of recalls from the CPSC frequently to make sure that there are no dangers lurking in your home. Share these recalls with your friends and family members to help to keep everyone safe! more If you or someone in your family has been injured by a defective product, contact PADOVE LAW, at (877) 446 5294 for a free and confidential consultation.

More Blog Entries: Humira Defective Drugs Law Suit, Indiana Injury and Family Lawyer Blog, July 18, 2011 Illinois Food Recall, Indiana Injury and Family Lawyer Blog, April 2, 2011

If you have been injured because of defective products in Highland, having your voice be heard is important not only to your family, but others like you.Our experienced Highland injury attorneys understand what it takes to fight big business to get you the award you deserve.

Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Burris is a Minnesota case between an injured plaintiff and an insurance company over injuries sustained due to a defective product. Burris (“plaintiff”) fell off a ladder manufactured by Versa and sustained serious injuries. Versa had a commercial general liability insurance policy and a “Self Insured Retention” (“SIR”) endorsement with Gulf Underwriters Insurance Company (“Gulf”). Because of this policy, Burris sued Gulf for the policy limits they had in coverage for Versa.

The problem in this case arose when Gulf filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that because Versa had not complied with their obligations under the SIR potion of the policy, the plaintiff was not entitled to any benefit as a third party.

Upon examining the evidence the court did find that Versa dissolved after expiration of the policy. However, the question was whether this was a material breach of the contract for coverage under this policy. Furthermore, the court was charged with analyzing how the effects of a material breach on the insurance coverage available to third parties.

Insurance policies are often extremely confusing and full of vague terms. And Gulf’s policy was not any different in this case. The court actually printed this policy in the decision to show the way key terms were used interchangeably to contradict each other. Also, the court noted that portions of this policy that were inconsistent with Gulf’s contentions were left out of their previous court briefs and memorandums.

In the policy involved in this case, there was a provision that stated that regardless of compliance with obligations of the SIR, all of the provisions of the general insurance policy apply. Therefore, the court found that the amount of the coverage could be affected by non-compliance with SIR, but not the fact that coverage was available would remain a constant.

A central concept in most cases is contract law. Establishing the type of contract at question is critical in determining what law applies. A contract consists of an offer and acceptance. In order to have acceptance, there needs to be a meeting of the minds. A contract is considered executory where a contract is created but not executed because further performance by one or both of the parties is still required. Gulf argued that because Versa was not up to date with payments, this policy was an executory contract and Gulf was released from coverage obligations in accidents associated with Versa’s defective products. The court here classified this as a “futile attempt” to avoid liability, and cited case law which is followed by “every court” in the county.

In Vandeveer, the court held that , “insurance policies for which the policy periods have expired and the premium has been paid are not executory contracts.” In re Vanderveer Estates Holding, LLC, 328 B.R. 18, 26 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y 2005).

For the reasons stated above, this court found that this policy was not an executory contract and Gulf did not provide the court with any evidence that the contract was breached by Versa. Therefore, the defendant motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the case was remanded to the lower court.

It is very important to understand that all attorneys are responsible for the work they submit to the court. There is an obligation for attorneys to present relevant state and federal statute as well as case law that supports and contradicts their contentions. In this case the court found that the attorney was withholding information that could be detrimental to their case and they found that an award of attorney fees for the plaintiff’s attorney was a proper punishment. more If you have been injured contact Highland injury Attorneys at Padove Law to schedule your free appointment. Call 219-836-2200.

Additional Resources:

Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Burris, et al., No. 11-1967 (8th Cir. Mar. 27, 2012). In re Vanderveer Estates Holding, LLC, 328 B.R. 18, 26 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y 2005).

• Ask your physician to describe the risks and benefits associated with the medications you are being prescribed.
• View your prescription before you leave your physician’s office. If the names of the drug, dosage or directions are not legible to you, ask the physician to clarify and write it down for your own records.
• When you receive your medication, ask the pharmacist to describe what you are taking the medication for and review the instructions with them.
• Check your drug tablets to see if they are the same as you have received in the past.
• If you experience side effects from a drug, report it to your physician immediately.
• If you are receiving more than on prescription or are already taking medication make sure that the pharmacist discusses interaction risks with you.

Burton A. Padove is currently accepting cases involving Avandia, Levaquin and Yaz. Although he primarily practices in the Chicago area, in Lake County and Porter County, Indiana as well as Cook County, Illinois, Mr. Padove represents injury victims throughout Indiana and Illinois, including Marion County and Indianapolis, Indiana. He can be reached at (219) 836 2200. You can visit his website at www.indianapersonalinjurylawyer.net.

In 2010, Abbott Laboratories filed a letter to make physicians aware of the risk of fungal infection associated with Humira use. However, some contend that Abbott knew about the risk of fungal infection for quite some time before the company issued the warning to physicians. In 2008, the FDA required Abbott to warn physicians about several fatal risks associated with Humira, such as, Histoplasmosis.

Other side effects associated with Humira include: optic nerve damage, lymphoma, vision issues and other nerve damage.

In 2003, Abbott released Humira for the treatment of Arthritis. Since then, Humira has been used for the treatment of several other illnesses. The annual sales for Humira are suspected to be over $6 billion. FDA investigations about approved drugs occur over time. The FDA gathers adverse event reports provided by physicians and patients as the adverse events occur. When the adverse events reports demonstrate a red flag indicator, the FDA further investigates and may issue warnings or request corrective action on the part of the manufacturer or distributor, depending upon the suspected responsible parties. Numerous law uits have already been filed.

Burton A. Padove represents and obtains damage compensation for injury victims of negligence caused by defective drugs, defective premises, nursing home abuse malpractice and those involved in truck and car accidents,. He is licensed in Illinois and Indiana and Padove Law accepts inquiries nationally, although Burton focuses his work primarily within 200 miles of Chicago including its suburbs in Cook, Will, DuPage, and Lake Counties Illinois, Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana and Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana. He can be reached at (219) 836 2200

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Mizuno, today announced a voluntary recall of Mizuno Supreme Series and Ballpark Pro baseball and softball gloves. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Some gloves were found to contain a variety of molds that could cause respiratory or other infections in persons suffering with chronic health problems, or in individuals who have impaired immune systems.

Description: The recalled items are leather Mizuno baseball and softball gloves. The gloves have a sewn-in white label on the heel of the glove with the words “Made in Vietnam” and the model number. Supreme Series gloves affected are further identified by the date code imprinted on the heel of the glove near the thumb opening. A list of the models can be obtained at the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s Web Site www.saferproducts.gov,

The products were sold at Walmart and Target stores nationwide from April 2010 through May 2011 for between $24 and $60.Co nsumers should immediately stop using the gloves and contact Mizuno USA to receive a full refund at (800) 451-7913 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.

Burton A. Padove is an attorney who provides a variety of recall information to help prevent serious injuries and health issues caused by defective drugs, medical devices and consumer products. He is licensed to practice law in Illinois and Indiana and has been assisting injury, auto and truck accident and malpractice victims for over 30 years. He can be reached at (219) 836 2200.

Unilever recently announced that the company recalled select packages of Skippy® Reduced Fat Peanut Butter Spread and Skippy® Reduced Fat Super Chunk Peanut Butter Spread because the company noticed that the identified packages may be contaminated with Salmonella.

Salmonella is an organism that has been linked to flu like symptoms. In rare cases, Salmonella may lead to a fatal infection. Seniors, children and people with weakened immune systems are particularly vulnerable.

Less severe symptoms associated with Salmonella are fever, diarrhea, bloody stool, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. More severe symptoms include: infections in the arteries, infected aneurysms, endocarditis and arthritis.

The product was also distributed throughout Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

It is the 16.3 oz plastic jars with select UPC codes (located under the bar code) that have been pulled from the market, including:

* UPCs: 048001006812 and 048001006782

* Best-If-Used-By Dates: MAY1612LR1, MAY1712LR1, MAY1812LR1, MAY1912LR1, MAY2012LR1 and MAY2112LR1 (located on the jar lid)

Neither Unilever nor the FDA received any reports of illness or death, but a routine investigation at the Unilever plant demonstrated that the above mentioned products may be contaminated with Salmonella.

Consumers affected by the recall can contact Unilever and should report any illness to the FDA. All consumers with affected products should discard the product immediately and may request a replacement from the manufacturer.

If you, your family or a friend need to protect their legal rights, contact PADOVE LAW, toll free at (877) 446 5294 for a free consultation.

This is because pasteurization allows for harmful bacteria contaminants and organism to be killed. Since pasteurization is a process that has been used for decades, authorities have confirmed that it is a safe and effective process for eliminating contamination.

There are several cheese manufacturers that use pasteurized milk in their products, but there are other companies that use unpasteurized raw milk. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence that unpasteurized products are safe and effective. Since the pasteurizations process had been reviewed by the FDA, the FDA recommends that all milk products be pasteurized.

It is important to note that there is limited enforcement on this issue unless a food borne illness is discovered. While we don’t want to create a buyer beware market, it is important for consumers to be aware that manufacturers producing unpasteurized food and drink containing raw milk do exist in America.

There are a few ways that you can be proactive to reduce your risk of a food borne illness. If you are interested in trying a food or drink product that has just become available on the market or one that is new to your pallet, ask the store manager how long the product has been on the market and ask about the quality of the ingredients. Also, it’s wise to take the time to research information about the manufacturer on the Internet. You’ll want to know how long the product has been available to consumers and the manufacturer’s track record. Typically, information about unsafe products will become available to consumers five years or more after it is available on the market. Sometimes, recalls of select products may come out at any time during the company’s distribution.

Aged cheese that has been aged for 60 days or longer is said by some to provide enough time to kill harmful bacteria. The FDA is investigating this premise at this time. Roughly 50% of U.S. states allow raw milk that is not pasteurized to be produced and sold.

If you, your family or a friend need to protect their legal rights, contact PADOVE LAW, toll free at (877) 446 5294 for a free consultation.

Consumers need to be aware that Raw Milk products, such as milk and cheese, that are not pasteurized, are not healthy to drink or eat. Locally produced and minimally processed foods may be more nutritious in some cases. However, foods and drink that are not pasteurized pose a risk for injury. Unpasteurized calcium sources like raw milk may be contaminated with unhealthy bacteria and organisms, such as, salmonella, E. coli, and listeria.

The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that pasteurization is recommended for all milk in the United States. When milk goes through the pasteurizing process, the milk is heated to 161 degrees and maintains this heating temperature for 15 seconds to eliminate harmful bacteria and organisms. . Pasteurization kills harmful bacteria-including salmonella, E. coli, and listeria-that can contaminate milk before it gets to your table.

Pasteurization allows for the prevention of foodborne illness. Food borne illnesses have been linked to tuberculosis, brucellosis, salmonellosis, scarlet fever, and listeriosis. The pasteurization process has passed a test of time, demonstrating safety and efficacy which has been used for over 100 years.

So, it’s important to check the ingredient labels on all food and drink that you plan to consume. This particularly holds true for newly introduced organic foods and drinks that have passed a test of time for safety and efficacy. Ask the store manager about any new foods or drink you plan to consume from boutique stores.

If you, your family or a friend need to protect their legal rights, contact PADOVE LAW, toll free at (877) 446 5294 for a free consultation.

In these types of recall cases, manufacturers will often discover flaws in equipment following reports from users. In the case of Artic Cat, there were 13 reports that the suspension arm cracked during use which may lead to loss of control of the vehicle. There were no reports of injury or accidents to date. Yet, engineers will typically design out the flaw to prevent the risk of the malfunction and consequential personal injuries following reports. So, it is wise for owners of all 2010 Arctic Cat Z1, TZ1, F, Bearcat, M, and CF model snow mobiles, including: all model feature and color variations are included in the recall to visit an Arctic Cat dealer for a repair.

Arctic Cat and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission joined together to announce the recall. Owners are typically contacted by mail and through announcements, such as, this announcement. If you have any questions regarding the recall, you may contact Artic Cat direct at 1-800-279-6851.

Indiana and Illinois lawsuits are common for defective products that result in severe permanent personal injuries. The goal of the lawsuit is to provide compensation for the person’s injuries, affected family members, medical expenses and income loss.

If you, your family or a friend have suffered damages and need assistance in asserting your rights for justice and compensation, contact PADOVE LAW, toll free at (877) 446 5294 for a free consultation.

Internet sales rip offs totaling $30 million in 2009 have been based on “deceptive advertising and unfair billing practices”. There have been over 2,800 complaints filed with law enforcement agencies and the Better Business Bureau.

Buyers will be able to participate in a risk free trial by producing evidence of illegal billing. The estimates of people affected in the scam total approximately 1 million.

There has also been a trademark infringement complaint filed against 40 Internet marketers. Internet sales rip offs are now one of the most recent biggest scams that is occurring in the U.S.

AcaiPure, distributed by Central Coast Nutraceuticals Inc. and its affiliates, is a weight-loss supplement, marketed for helping people lose up to 25 pounds in the first months. This drug was also removed from the market. Colopure was marketed as a preventative colon cancer treatment.

When purchasing products on the Internet, consumers must be extremely careful. It’s wise to view multiple websites in order to evaluate the differences in quality and credibility of the site. Phoned in call purchases are always the best option. It’s wise to look for a “lock” icon on the website where you are making a purchase before entering your credit card information. You can also ask the vendor to delete your credit card information following your purchase to eliminate the risk of getting charged for items that you no longer want to be charged for. Repetitive charges from Internet companies are common and you’ll want to reduce those risks as much as possible.

If you, your family or a friend have suffered damages and incurred medical expenses from a defective product, and need assistance in asserting your rights for justice and compensation, contact PADOVE LAW, toll free at (877) 446 5294 for a free consultation.