personal injury lawyer -

An NBA player has reached a confidential settlement in a lawsuit against the manufacturer and distributors of an exercise ball that exploded during training camp.

Francisco Garcia, then 29, was balancing on a Gymnic Burst Resistant Plus Stability Ball while using dumbbells when the ball burst, causing him to fall and fracture his wrist. Garcia had a metal plate implanted during surgery and missed most of the season for the Sacramento Kings. Even when he resumed playing, he had a restricted range of motion.

Garcia, who was represented by Panish, Shea & Boyle LLP, claimed the product was marketed as suitable for use with weights up to 600 pounds, though it failed under less weight.

The manufacturer, Ledraplastic S.p.a., has agreed to distribute a letter warning customers to never use Gymnic fit balls with weights.

Click here to view the full article from the American Association of Justice.

In the August issue of Advocate, our firm’s own Rahul Ravipudi and Ryan Casey illustrate how important the discovery process is in a personal injury case and show what can be done should the defendant withhold or even destroy evidence that can be used to benefit your claim.  In such instances, the state of California offers the plaintiff tools that can help even the playing field, so to speak.

To learn about these tools and how they can be utilized to get sanctions placed upon a defendant for abusing the discovery process, click here to read Mr. Ravipudi’s and Mr. Casey’s valuable report.

Every once in awhile, it’s nice to revisit the basics of what to do should you be involved in an accident.  These next few tips come from FindLaw.com, and they might not apply to every situation, but they’re still important to consider.

No matter the type of accident that you’ve been involved in, you should have a medical professional check you over.  Certain injuries might not present themselves immediately, plus the quicker you see a doctor, the harder it is for other parties to try and say that your injuries were caused by a different accident.

Similarly, act quickly to both contact the police and fill out an accident report.  Each of these things begins the process of establishing a verifiable legal record of the incident, and this can later be used to prove the facts of the case.  After the initial inquiry, it’s also critical to document everything you can think of.  Witness testimony will be sharper the sooner an interview is conducted, and your own memory of the incident is far more vivid in the initial aftermath.  Plus, the quicker you act, the better the chances that physical evidence doesn’t disappear.

The next crucial step that many people unfortunately miss is getting in touch with a personal injury lawyer.  Again, the quicker the better.  If the statute of limitations runs out on your claim, even the most skilled attorney will be hard-pressed to gain you compensation.  A personal injury attorney can guide you through this difficult situation and help you get fair restitution and move on with your life.

The DePuy ASR metal-on-metal hip implant has brought pain to people all across the world who have been victimized by the failure of this device.  In August 2010, Johnson & Johnson finally announced the recall of this defective product, which had a shocking failure rate of around 49% after six years of use, according to the British Orthopaedic Association.

These kinds of statistics are unacceptable, and it begs the question:  just how did such a potentially dangerous product get allowed onto the market in the first place?  In the May issue of Advocate, our firm’s own Pete Kaufman answers that question.  In addition to delving into how the product could have come to market without extensive clinical testing and how such a device would have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the first place, Kaufman discusses the essential tactics that a plaintiff’s legal team must utilize in order to gain proper compensation for the victim.

Click here to view the full article

One of the most important steps that must be made when pursuing a personal injury case is obtaining every piece of information relevant to the case.  This is known as the discovery process, and it is typically used to prove liability of the defendant, who may knowingly or unknowingly be harboring some critical safety oversight within their mountains of documents.

In the February 2009 issue of Advocate, our firm’s own Rahul Ravipudi delves into the complications that go along with the discovery process when pursuing a personal injury claim against the state of California.  He expounds on a certain federal provision that the state typically uses to stymie a personal injury lawyer’s efforts to uncover liability in an accident case.

Basically, the statue they hide behind has a provision wherein states do not have to hand over for discovery those items pertaining to the development of federally funded state highway projects.  As Ravipudi demonstrates, this way of thinking is inherently faulty, and a defense strategy crafted around such interpretation of the law can be used to hide safety issues whose correction may have prevented harm in the first place.

Click here to view the full article

It might seem counterintuitive to some, but in many wrongful death cases, it can make more sense to discard economic damages entirely in order to focus on the noneconomic damage that can befall those persons who have had a loved one taken away from them.  In the January issue of Advocate, our own Brian J. Panish and Deborah Chang discuss their thinking when it comes to this increasingly common legal strategy.

They base their arguments on the results that Panish Shea & Boyle were able to gain on behalf of a client.  A 2009 train accident tragically cut short the life of a blind man when he fell into the gap between two train cars.  That individual’s mother filed a suit against the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the jury awarded her $17 million in noneconomic damages.  In that case, our firm chose to only pursue noneconomic damages, and this strategy proved to be successful.

This strategy is becoming increasingly common, as we can never really put a price on the value of one’s life.  The emotional devastation inflicted on surviving family members can be far greater than the economic loss, and plaintiffs deserve proper compensation.

Click here to view the full article

Not all cases are as cut and dried as initially suspected.  In the March issue of Advocate, Kevin Boyle and Robert Glassman, two members of our firm, talk about the challenges that awaited them when they took a personal injury case involving an intoxicated minor who was liable in an automobile accident.

During an exploration of the circumstances surrounding the case, our firm discovered that the minor had been bar-hopping with a fake ID, and thus had been served by numerous establishments despite the fact he was a minor who was clearly intoxicated.  Our attorneys determined that the bars themselves could be held liable for the ensuing collision.

Our firm established this liability by utilizing three key strategies:  retaining an expert toxicologist, hiring an individual who could speak about standards of care in bartending, and successfully arguing against the applicability of Proposition 51.

In the Advocate article, Boyle and Glassman detail how and why these strategies were crafted, as well as how they allowed us to gain compensation for our client.

Click here to view the full article

In the January/February issue of Forum, our firm’s very own Robert Glassman and Kevin Boyle discuss the ways that personal injury lawyers can get around the legal hurdles imposed by Proposition 51.  Thanks to the efforts of tort reformers and insurance companies, this proposition was passed way back in 1986.  Basically, the measure limited the noneconomic damages that were available to persons filing a personal injury claim.  It did so by making defendants liable only in proportion to the degree at which they were at fault in an accident.

However, a California Supreme Court decision has caused many appellate courts to reevaluate how they apply the new law, and in numerous instances, it’s been determined that Prop 51 simply should not come into play.  Our firm’s attorneys have done an incredible job elaborating upon those situations where personal injury lawyers can get around the blockade imposed by Proposition 51.  It’s essential reading for anyone struggling to obtain a fair amount of compensation for an injured client.

Click here to view the full article

A new study suggests that a person’s weight might have an influence on the likelihood of that person surviving a vehicular accident.

The study, which will be presented by the University of Buffalo in New York at Chicago’s Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, hinges on the fact that persons of normal weight utilize seat belts far more often than their obese counterparts.  In fact, after looking at 300,000 accidents, researchers discovered that regular-sized individuals have a 67% greater chance of wearing a seat belt.  This number lowers steadily the larger a person is.

When combined with research from two years ago that shows morbidly obese people are 56% more likely to die in a crash (along with a 21% increase in the moderately obese), it paints a startling picture.  The people behind the research are currently calling on automakers to figure out how to make vehicles safer for people of greater-than-average weight, suggesting that obese crash test dummies could provide a solution.

It should be noted, however, that people that are just described as being ‘overweight’ are actually slightly less likely to die in a crash.  This has to do with having a moderately larger mass and because they position themselves further from the steering wheel.

It’s my hope as a personal injury lawyer in San Diego that everyone out there learn a valuable lesson from this study and others like it.  This shows that any number of statistics can influence how safe a person is in an automobile accident.  As a San Diego car accident attorney, I figure that the more knowledgable we are, the more we can do to prevent disaster.

The threat of Listeria monocytogenes being present in a product has prompted another recall.

The products affected by this particular recall are alfalfa sprouts produced by the Cleveland-based Cleveland Beansprouts Company.  The product does not have any identifiable lot code, but it shouldn’t matter, as all alfalfa sprouts are being recalled, not just one specific lot.  As such, any consumer with a Cleveland Beansprouts alfalfa sprouts product in their possession should immediately abstain from consumption and get rid of the item at once.

The Listeria monocytogenes were uncovered during sample testing by the Ohio Department of Agriculture.  This testing was conducted under the Microbiological Data Program instituted by the United States Department of Agriculture.

There have thankfully been no illnesses reported at this time, but consumers are being advised to be on the lookout for fever, nausea, diarrhea, or abdominal pain, as any of these things could be a sign of a Listeria infection.  In particular, those persons with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk for contracting an infection, which could prove fatal to such individuals.

It saddens me as a personal injury lawyer in San Francisco to see yet another product pose a threat of foodborne illness.  Although these products were only sold in Ohio, there’s no telling when a product might be taken across state lines.  This is why as a San Bernardino personal injury attorney I emphasize the importance of following recalls from around the country, if not the entire globe.