TOV Injury and Safety Blog

New studies document long-term cancer risk of medical CT-scanning

Two new studies published in the Archives of Internal Medicine constitute a startling warning of the risk of cancer posed by the "explosion" of CT-scanning since 1993.  Performed by the National Cancer Institute and the University of California, San Francisco, they document the increased risk of developing cancer and also the lack of established guidelines and uniformity in associated radiation dosing.

The authors of the risk study identified lung cancer as the most common radiation-associated metastatic disease, followed by colon cancer and leukemia.  They predict that with the three-fold increase in CT-scanning over the past decade, we will experience 29,000 new cancer diagnoses and 15,000 additional deaths, annually, with a two percent over-all cancer occurrence.  (Doctors currently diagnose 1.4 million cancer cases, annually.)

Transportation authority entitled to dismissal of claim, despite actual notice

William Pollard suffered a broken hip on a Suburban Mobility Authority bus in Wayne County.  The bus driver was forced to call an ambulance to take Pollard to the hospital, and later the Authority mailed him an application for no fault benefits.  Pollard never returned the application, but he did file suit three months later, alleging serious injury resulting from the driver's negligence.  The Authority sought dismissal of the claim, based on Pollard's failure to provide the Authority with written notice of his injury within 60 days.  The trial court pointed to the Authority's actual knowledge of the injury and refused to dismiss the claim.  The Court of Appeals ruled that even though the Authority suffered no prejudice by the failure to mail a written notice, the case must be dismissed for failure to comply with the statute that requires notice.

Court dismisses failure-to-administer t-PA claim against ER doctor

The Plaintiff sued Dr. Carl Palffy and his E.R. practice for failing to administer t-PA [a plasminogen activator] to him in the E.R. at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital in Pontiac.  He had been admitted with a stroke and suffered an acute infarct the following day, rendering him a hemiplegiac.  The Plaintiff offered an expert witness who claimed that the standard of care included the administration of t-PA, however, the Defendant offered a different expert who claimed that administering t-PA was not the standard of care at the time. 

School lunch meat standards fall below standards of fast-food

USA Today reported on December 9, 2009, that meat purchased for federal school lunch programs usually does not meet the minimum standards of most fast food restaurants.  McDonalds, Burger King and Costco are "far more rigorous" in checking for bacteria and dangerous pathogens and test ground beef 5 to 10 times more often than the USDA tests beef for schools.  Jack and the Box and other large retailers set limits on certain bacteria that are up to 10 times more stringent than school beef standards set by the USDA.  The USDA purchases chicken that does not meet KFC standards---this is meat that hasn't been acceptable to the Campbell Soup Company "for more than a decade."  Do you remember when the USDA stamp of approval on a package of meat actually meant something?

CPSC recalls Amby Baby Motion Beds after two deaths

Since 2003, Amby Baby of Minneapolis has sold a hammock style crib for baby's who are fussy with colic or reflux.  Two infants have died, however; a 4-month-old from Georgia and a 5-month-old from Oregon.  They were apparently wedged into the hammock's fabric or the mattress pad and suffocated. This week the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled the beds. 

Medical Malpractice caps and health insurance reform

In case you were wondering, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report last year concluding that federal adoption of medical malpractice caps (such as the caps in Michigan) would contribute to a savings on health insurance of less than one-half of one percent.  Pretty nominal under the circumstances.  It also concluded that in those states like Michigan where caps have been adopted already (in our state for well over a decade) there is NO EVIDENCE that they reduce the practice of "defensive medicine,"  i.e., the practice of performing unnecessary procedures or tests, solely to reduce the risk of a lawsuit.  I'm betting that most doctors are honest enough, and compassionate enough, to order those procedures that a patient needs, because the patient needs them.  Michigan lawyers, already subject to "caps," have no dog in this fight, and I'll bet the argument of defensive medicine as an excuse to institute caps is grossly over-blown.

Court of Appeals upholds jury verdict against family in Lenawee County death case

The family of a young man killed in a Highway collision on US 223 filed suit against the trucking firm that struck the man's van while it was making a left turn.  The family claimed that the defendant was illegally passing the victim's left-turning vehicle and provided proof that the turn signal was activated.  The Defendant driver claimed that the van turned off the right shoulder into the path of his truck without warning, constituting a "sudden emergency."  Each side presented expert reconstruction testimony supporting their theory of how the collision happened, and the jury found in favor of the Defendant.  The Plaintiff family objected to the trial court's incomplete instruction on sudden emergency and also asked the higher court to overturn the verdict as "against the great weight of the evidence."  The Court of Appeals refused. 

Buyer who did not read paperwork cannot dispute sales numbers

Toni Plummer sued Finish Line Power Sports, Inc., alleging that the used snowmobile she bought was priced incorrectly.  She also claimed that the sled had dents in it that had not been present when she initially agreed to buy it.  The Company pointed to its paperwork that Toni signed and refused to re-negotiate or allow the sled to be returned.  The trial court rejected her claimed violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, but did allow a modest verdict related to the dents. 

On Appeal, the Court pointed out that since Toni admitted she didn't read the paperwork that came with the sled, she couldn't contest what it said by arguing it contradicted what she was told verbally.  She was held to the $5,200.00 price for what she thought would cost $3,000.00.  What's more, she was not allowed to object to the exorbitant interest charge, because the monthly payment amount and term were on the contract she signed, which the Court of Appeals concluded allowed her the right to confirm the interest rate by "a simple calculation."  We have some question about just how "simple" that interest calculation would have been, although when someone concedes that they haven't read the paperwork and instead relied on verbal representations, they don't end up with much of a "leg to stand on," legally.

Kid hurt in gym class cannot sue becaues she "assumed the risk" of playing soccer

Heather Willford suffered a serious knee injury after she was kicked by Travis Thorington in gym class.  Her father, as her Guardian, filed a negligence claim, alleging that Travis had been guilty of negligence or gross negligence in injuring her.  The insurer for Thoringtons filed a motion to dismiss the claim, arguing that under the Ritchie-Gamester v. City of Berkley decision, Heather had "assumed the risk of injury" by participating in the gym class soccer game.  The lower court had rejected this defense, finding that since Travis was allegedly not involved in the game being played, Heather had not assumed the risk that he might hurt her. 

Court rules "No dual domicile" for emancipated kid

Farmers Insurance Exchange and the Auto Club fought over which should provide No Fault PIP benefits to Edward Carter and his Conservator, Angela Henderson, after Carter suffered catastrophic motor vehicle accident injuries. He was a pedestrian when he was struck by a car.  He had no car or car insurance of his own, but family members with whom he sometimes stayed did have auto insurance.  The trial court heard the various facts about where Carter was living, and concluded that he was maintaining a "dual domicile" with two different family members.  The Court of Appeals rejected this outcome and sent the case back to the lower court to determine which of the places where he sometimes stayed was his "only one domicile that is the place where there is a true fixed permanent and principal establishment to which the person has the intention to return."