Blog

As quickly as we entered a post on melamine contaminated candies recalled by Cadbury, Kraft Foods and Mars in China and Indonesia, we discovered that White Rabbit Candy is recalling candies from American shelves because of melamine contamination.

On September 26, 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a press release advising of the recall of What rabbit Creamy Candy sold in 8 or 16 oz packages in the U.S. All flavors of the candy are recalled, including Assorted Chocolate, Coffee, Red Bean, Corn, Lychee, Mango and Strawberry. Packages bear the logo of a white rabbit on the front with the words “White Rabbit”.

These products have made it to stores in California, Oregon and Washington, as well as others. If you have purchased any of these items, immediately return them to the store for a refund.

Again, it is hard to fathom why so many products in the world have been contaminated with this non-nutritional chemical agent. If our readers have seen other recalls, please advise us.

According to the Associated Press, the British based candy maker, Cadbury, issued a recall on 11 types of its chocolates produced in China because they contained melamine.

This appears to be related to the melamine milk contamination that has killed several babies in China and sickened 10’s of thousands of children. The contaminated chocolates do not appear to have reached markets outside of China.

American food producers, Kraft Foods, Inc and Mars, Inc, have announced that they will adhere to a recall order of Chinese-made Oreos, M&Ms and Snickers distributed in Indonesia. The Associated Press article revealed that melamine has also been found in such products as yogurt, candy and pastries.

Though 22 people have been arrested in China for connections to the melamine contamination of milk products, the full breadth of the products contaminated in this way is still not clear. Pet food products were the subject of this type of poisonous contamination last year.

We will keep a watchful eye on reports of melamine contamination on products sold in America to help prevent these products from finding their way to our market shelves “through the back door.” We would welcome any information that you may have in this regard.

Yesterday, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall for Toy Police Cars distributed by TCB Imports, Inc. These small friction propelled cars were sold at Dollar and discount stores nationwide from May 2008 through August 2008 for about $1.00. The toys were manufactured in China.

If you have, or suspect that your child is playing with one of these toys, immediately return it to the store where purchased for a refund. You can contact the importer at www.tcbimports.com.

Our Redding attorneys have particular interest in the deluge of defective toys which have been inundating our markets from China and other foreign countries in the recent past. It is clear that these foreign manufacturers are not abiding to the high standards that American Manufacturers have followed for decades, and that there is very little enforcement of standards concerning lead paint and other toxic substances in these toys. The proliferation of these toys throughout the nation and our households can not be underestimated.

With this post, we are creating a “Recalled Toys” category in our column to help parents and other consumers to be aware of the many defective toys that continue to make it to the shelves of our stores.

Most Americans today are completely unaware that there is a movement afoot to abolish personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies under the doctrine of “Federal Pre-emption.” In the context of pharmaceuticals, this means that if a consumer who takes a prescribed drug and suffers a serious injury or death as a consequence, he/she will have no right to recover against the Pharmaceutical Company, no matter how blameworthy the company was, if the drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Over the years, many commentators have been critical of the FDA and its ability to adequately oversee and regulate the pharmaceutical industry. In issuing its approval of drugs, the FDA must rely in large part on the company’s testing of drug performance to determine its efficacy, contraindications, side effects and dangers. The FDA is not an independent lab, and its approvals of drugs and drug warnings cannot help but be strongly influenced by the pharmacetical company’s presentation of the drug and its proclaimed health benefits.

Recently, in a case entitled Riegel v. Medtronic, the United States Supreme Court extended the pre-emption doctrine in the field of medical devices. In that case, Charles Riegel was seriously injured when the ballon catheter used during an angioplasty burst during the operation. In a suit brought against the manufacturer, Medtronic, the Riegels claimed that the device was defective and dangerous. The Supreme Court trumped the case, however, holding that the federal law that authorizes the FDA to regulate medical devices also limited the rights of injured parties to sue. The Riegels were left with no remedy.

In November of this year the issue of pre-emption in the field of pharmaceutical drugs will be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court in Levine v. Wyeth Industries. In that case Diana Levine, a musician, was admitted to an emergency room for a migraine headache. During her stay a drug called Phenergan was administered through her IV to address nausea. The drug is usually administered intramuscularly through a shot in the rear end. As a direct result of the administration of the drug through her IV, Levine’s arm and hand became gangrene. The hand was amputated first, but she eventually lost her entire arm.

Levine brought a civil action against Wyeth claiming that the labeling instructions were inadequate. A jury awarded her $6 million against the pharmaceutical company. Wyeth Industries has appealed to the U.S.Supreme Court on grounds of pre-emption.

Since the Riegel decision, Congress has proposed the Medical Device Safety Act of 2008 (HR 6381) to overturn the Riegel v. Medtronic decision. In opposition to pre-emption in the upcoming Levine case, nine current and former editors of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, along with 47 state attorneys general and two former FDA commissioners have filed a brief asserting that the FDA cannot do an adequate job to protect Americans. Two strong articles concerning these pre-emption fields can be found at injuryboard.com: Part One and Part Two.

The importance of the pre-emption doctrine in the field of pharmaceutical drugs is critical. Today pharmaceutical companies advertise directly to consumers in every form of media, creating demands for drugs never before experienced. If consumers are precluded from going to court to recover when the drug companies are negligent, distribute defective and dangerous products, fail to warn about known or forseeable adverse effects, or misrepresent the need or appropriateness of the drug for certain health conditions, then not only is the individual consumer hurt, but all consumers are hurt. What sends a clearer message to a manufacturer, a money verdict telling them to pay for the wrong they have done, or a “complaint” filed with the FDA that will take years to process, if it is ever processed?

We would urge all consumers to write their congressional representatives to advise them that pre-emption in the field of pharmaceutical drugs is a bad idea. A petition has been circulated on the internet if you chose to go this route.

According to an article published in eFluxMedia, a new rat study has revealed that a molecule named Alda-1 that helps the body overcome the effects of alcohol may help to inhibit damage to the heart following a heart attack. This molecule activates an enzyme called aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (ALDH2) which then assists in the ingestion and processing of alcohol.

The research appears to be in its very preliminary state, but it seems the introduction of the molecule makes the heart resistant to localized damage caused by the deficiency in oxygen. This could have wide benefits in critical heart care management, and could lessen the long term deficits that follow these events.

Our Redding lawyers have a longstanding interest in developments in the field of heart care and health. From time to time, new developments that appear promising or otherwise garner our interest will be reported in our posts.

CRESCENT CITY, Calif. A recent story in The Daily Triplicate chronicled a serious head-on collision involving a 59 year-old Crescent City man heading to work and a 1999 Toyota pickup that had been stolen. The crash occurred on Lake Earl Drive in Crescent City near Red Hawk Lane. The driver of the Toyota fled the scene and has not been found. The injured 59 year-old gentleman was eventually flown to Providence Hospital in Medford, Ore. with serious injuries.

This tragic and unforgiveable collision raises a serious insurance question that people seldom think about until it happens to them. If the car that hit me flees the scene, or the driver takes off running, can I recover? What if the car that hits me was stolen, what then?

In California, it is mandatory that your automobile insurance carrier offer you Uninsured Motorist (UM) Coverage for this type of event. A purchaser of automobile insurance can “waive” UM coverage, but only in writing.

Uninsured Motorist coverage applies when in a “hit and run” situation. This means that even though you are never able to identify the driver, or perhaps the vehicle, that hit you, you may still recover by claiming against your own insurance company, under the Uninsured Motorist Coverage. You must, however, report the crash to law enforcement authorities within 24 hours.

Under this coverage, your insurance company becomes responsible for the damages and injuries that you received at the hands of the unknown “uninsured” driver. You pay a separate premium for this specific type of coverage, so making a claim for the coverage will not affect your premium rates. You only recover if the other party was at fault.

The stolen car situation also raises issues of Uninsured Motorist coverage. The car’s true owner may have insurance coverage on the car, but there will be an exemption in that policy if the car was stolen or its use was not “permissive.” Thus, if involved in a car crash with a vehicle that was stolen, even if you have been able to identify the other driver and owner, it is unlikely that there will be coverage for the event, so you will be required to pursue an uninsured motorist claim.

Over the years, our Redding lawyers have observed that many people either waive Uninsured Motorist Coverage, or keep the minimum of coverage. We constantly remind people that it is this type of coverage that protects you and your family. Therefore, we strongly encourage our clients to maintain as much Uninsured Motorist coverage as they can afford. If you think about it, if the main breadwinner of a family cannot work for 6 months or a year, will $15,000 in coverage be sufficient to take care of his medical bills, lost wages and other financial detriments? Of course not.

So, we advise our clients to review their policies with their insurance agents regularly, and make sure that they are getting adequate Uninsured Motorist Coverage to provide for themselves and their families in the event that one of these catastrophic events occurs.