• Experienced | Successful | Since 1971

Daily Archives :

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Dealing with the Insurance Company After an Accident
Dealing with the Insurance Company After an Accident 150 150 CMZ Law Lufkin/Houston

Even minor car accidents can be traumatic. It is not uncommon for victims to be unsure of what to do next after an accident. Insurance companies are often the first contact after an accident, especially if the crash was not your fault. Even though they may seem like a helping hand in a confusing time, the other driver’s insurance company does not have your best interests at heart. Instead, they may try to take advantage of your confusion and manipulate you into saying things you did not mean to settle for far less than what your case is worth.

Dealing with the insurance company after an accident can be tricky. It is often a good idea to let your personal injury attorney talk to the insurance company to avoid any potential that they may try to take advantage of you. Below are a few reasons why.

  1. The insurance company is not obligated to be fair or fast-acting.

The other driver’s insurance company only has an obligation to their insurer. They have no responsibilities when it comes to treating you well or addressing your needs. Instead, they may even ignore your needs completely in favor of their insured. Unfortunately, there is virtually nothing stopping an insurance company from doing this. They may offer you a settlement that is far lower than what your case is worth, delay payments, and even deny your claim. It can be difficult to stick up for yourself in these situations.

  1. Insurance adjusters negotiate for a living.

Insurance adjusters see cases like yours every day of the week. They know what most cases are worth just by reading the facts. They also know how to negotiate with victims who are not represented by an attorney. Unfortunately, this experience, combined with the desire to pay as little as possible, sometimes means that adjusters will take advantage of victims. Having an experienced personal injury attorney on your side can help even the playing field and help you get the compensation you deserve after an accident.

  1. You do not have to use the body shop that the insurance company recommends.

Some insurance companies will try to tell you that you must use a particular body shop to receive compensation for your property damage. In most situations, this simply isn’t the case. In fact, you may want to avoid the shop that the insurance company recommends because they sometimes undervalue your vehicle or provide decreased estimates on how much it will actually cost to get things fixed. If you have a body shop that you like better, it may be a good idea to use them instead.

  1. You likely do not want the first settlement offer.

In most situations, the first settlement offer is an opening point. It gets the bargaining process going. However, some victims will take the first offer, so the insurance company may try to low ball you first, just to see if it works. Unfortunately, some victims see mounting medical bills, vehicle repair bills, and time away from work, so they are eager to accept anything the insurance company will give them.

Getting an experienced personal injury lawyer can help you determine what your case is really worth. He or she will also help you get the most out of your car accident. After all, you were injured, and you deserve to be compensated for your losses. Call CMZ Law for more information.

Driver Who Hit a Texas Church Bus Admits to Texting, Taking Medication
Driver Who Hit a Texas Church Bus Admits to Texting, Taking Medication 150 150 CMZ Law Lufkin/Houston

Who is at-fault in the Texas church bus accident?

A horrific bus crash in Texas recently left 13 dead and two injured. Now, as new details emerge about the accident, it appears the driver of the pickup truck that collided with the church minibus was distracted and potentially under the influence of medication.  The accident happened when the 20-year-old driver of a pickup truck crossed the center marker on U.S. 83, striking a bus head on.  The bus was carrying several senior citizens on its return venture from a church retreat.  Tragically, the bus driver and all but one passenger perished in the crash.

Distracted Driving and Fault

According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, the driver of the pickup admitted to texting at the time of the accident.  Several witnesses have come forward and stated that they saw the truck swerving prior to the accident.  There are also reports of the potential involvement of medication in the crash.  In light of this evidence, the family members of some accident victims have already filed personal injury lawsuits seeking compensation for their losses from the young driver.

Texting while driving is a common but dangerous practice in Texas and elsewhere across the nation.  As a country, most of us are increasingly attached to our smartphones.  For many, it is difficult to put the phone away, even when driving.  However, texting while driving costs thousands of lives each year.  The National Safety Council reports that texting while driving is six times as likely to cause a car accident than driving drunk.  This incredibly hazardous practice will draw your eyes away from the road for at least five seconds, which is more than long enough to cause an accident.

It can be difficult to determine whether a driver who hit you was distracted at the time of the crash.  Cell phone records are often a powerful means of gathering evidence of distraction.  Your personal injury attorney will assist you in uncovering evidence in support of your personal injury claim.  If you can establish that the driver who hit you was distracted at the time of the crash, then the driver will typically be deemed at-fault and liable for your damages.

Texas Woman Gets Walmart Premises Liability Lawsuit Filed in the Nick of Time
Texas Woman Gets Walmart Premises Liability Lawsuit Filed in the Nick of Time 150 150 CMZ Law Lufkin/Houston

A recent personal injury lawsuit involving mega-retailer Wal-Mart serves as an important reminder of the importance of the state statute of limitations. The lawsuit, which was filed just days before the two-year deadline for injury claims, sets out a series of factual allegations against the store which could possibly result in a lucrative resolution for the plaintiff. However, had the plaintiff missed the deadline – no matter how inadvertent – the law generally imposes a bar on recovery, provided certain “tolling” defenses are not available.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff was shopping in a Beaumont-area store in April 2015 when she suddenly toppled to the ground after stepping in water in the entryway. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff reportedly broke her hip and had to endure a great deal of pain during her recovery. While the store maintains it properly warned guests that water was present on the ground, the plaintiff asserts that these warnings were placed inside the store such that a shopper would not have seen them in time.

Under Texas law, an injured plaintiff has two years from the date of an alleged incident to file a claim for damages. If the injury occurs as a result of medical malpractice, the statute begins to run on the date the plaintiff discovered the mistake (or reasonably should have discovered the mistake).

As mentioned above, the concept of “tolling” works to “stop the clock” with regard to a statute of limitations in certain limited circumstances. For instance, if a plaintiff is mentally incompetent for a period of time following the injury, that period of time will not “count” towards the total time period. Likewise, in many cases, statute will not begin to run with regard to a minor plaintiff until the plaintiff reaches the age of majority.

If you recently experienced an injury, don’t delay – speak to a reputable personal injury attorney right away!

Contact Chandler Mathis & Zivley today!

To make an appointment to discuss your recent experience, please call us right away: 1-877-739-7744.

 

Jones Act Compensates Qualified Seamen for Offshore Accident Injuries
Jones Act Compensates Qualified Seamen for Offshore Accident Injuries 150 150 CMZ Law Lufkin/Houston

Q: Are there special laws that cover workers who are injured at sea?

On land, employees who are injured on the job are prohibited from suing their employers for damages but may collect certain compensation for medical expenses and lost income through Worker’s Compensation.

But employees injured in Off Shore accidents– such as fisherman, tugboat workers, and others–are covered under maritime accident laws, and some worker’s claims may also fall within the protection of the Jones Act.

Maritime and Offshore Accident lawyers with Jones Act experience are able to help those workers who work on or near the water recover much more than their onshore counterparts in the event they are injured at sea.

The Jones Act, also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, applies to qualified “seamen” who are injured or become sick while working at sea. Unlike Workers’ Compensation, it allows injured workers to sue their employers for injuries that resulted from the negligence of the captain, crew, or vessel owners.

Jones Act claims are very complex –not every worker meets the qualifications of a “seaman” – and they require representation by personal injury attorneys with particular experience in this niche of maritime law.

Damages recoverable may include economic and non-economic losses like past and future medical expenses, lost income, diminished or lost earning capacity, pain and suffering, and even punitive damages, depending on the particular case.

Last year, a fatal tug accident occurred on the San Jacinto River just outside Houston, Texas. According to a National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) Marine Accident Brief on the incident, the “probable cause’ for the capsizing and sinking of the uninspected tug vessel with a relief captain at the helm  was his decision to perform an “ill-advised ‘downstreaming’ maneuver without implementing the operating company’s risk mitigation strategies or other safeguards” in high water. The capsizing and sinking of the vessel, which caused the death of one of the five crew members, was captured on video.

“Downstreaming” maneuvers–where towing vessels go down river to land on another object like a barge or dock–present a “significant risk” of “rapid down flooding, capsizing and sinking” during certain river conditions such as the high water.at the time of the accident near Houston. The Coast Guard had reportedly issued advisories– which included restrictions on downstreaming– that were in effect at the time of the accident.

If you have suffered offshore injuries while working on a shipping vessel, boat, barge, tanker, yacht, fishing boat, or offshore oil rig,– or if you’re a non-covered worker who received an offshore injury – – the experienced maritime attorneys at Chandler Mathis and Zivley can help you obtain the compensation you deserve. Call us today at 877-739-7744 to schedule a consultation.

From our offices in Lufkin and Houston, we’ve been serving clients throughout Texas and nationwide for over 40 years.

 

Drug Used to Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis Has Caused Many Deaths
Drug Used to Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis Has Caused Many Deaths 150 150 CMZ Law Lufkin/Houston

Why don’t the warning labels on Actemra list its most dangerous side effects?

According to a June 7, 2017 PharmaLive.com report, Actemra (tocilizumab), an FDA-approved medication manufactured by Roche/Genentech for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, has been associated with the deaths of more than 1,000 patients. Especially troubling is that the causes of these deaths are not listed on the drug’s label as among the drug’s potential side effects.

Frightening as this is for patients who have been prescribed Actemra, it is, unfortunately, not an isolated situation. Over the years, a number of theoretically “safe” medications have resulted in serious unpredicted side effects, sometimes resulting in the deaths of unsuspecting patients. If you, or someone in your family, has suffered a severe reaction to a drug, you should be aware that you have legal recourse. A personal injury attorney experienced in product defects will be able to fight to ensure that you and your family receive the compensation you deserve.

What is Actemra used for?

Actemra is a biologic drug approved to treat moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults and particular types of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and idiopathic arthritis in children. Biologic medications are designed to reduce the inflammation which is the primary symptom of rheumatoid arthritis.

How many patients have taken Actemra?

The problems associated with Actemra are not small ones. Since the drug was approved for use in 2010, it has been prescribed to more than three-quarters of a million patients. Many had severe reactions, and for over 1,100 such reactions resulted in fatalities.

Side Effects of Actemra Listed on the Label

The milder side effects listed on the Actemra label include:

  • Runny or stuffy nose
  • Sinus pain, headache, dizziness
  • Sore throat
  • Itching
  • Mild stomach cramps
  • Urinary tract infection (UTI).

The more severe side effects mentioned include:

  • Severe stomach pain with constipation
  • Bloody, tarry, or clay-colored stools
  • Coughing up blood or vomiting
  • Painful blistering skin rash upper stomach pain
  • Dark urine
  • Jaundice

While some of the latter symptoms imply gallbladder or pancreatic involvement, pancreatitis, one of the dangerous side effects observed by doctors in patients taking Actemra, is not listed.

The Serious Unmentioned Side Effects of Actemra

Stat News has reported that the hundreds of people whose deaths were associated with the drug died from cardiovascular and pulmonary complications, other side effects for which Actemra labels carry no warnings. During an investigation of more than 500,000 reports of side effects from rheumatoid arthritis drugs, Stat News found clear evidence that, even though Actemra labels contain no warnings relative to heart attack, stroke, or pancreatitis, the risk of having of experiencing such life-threatening events was as high, or higher, for Actemra patients than for patients taking other biologics that carried warnings of such events.

Numerous doctors have suggested that Actemra has had a significant involvement in the deaths of their patients, suggesting a link between the drug  and cardiovascular events and/or pancreatitis. Various experts who have reviewed the evidence, which although still circumstantial is statistically compelling, recommend that the FDA consider adding a warning label to Actemra that includes the dangers of heart and lung problems and pancreatitis. Because of the time lapses in FDA reporting, it is essential that you be aware of the dangers of any medications that may be prescribed to you or your loved ones. If you suffer a severe medical episode while on a new medication, you should investigate the possibility that the two events are connected and contact a skilled personal injury attorney promptly.


Pilots Nationwide Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Review Product Liability Lawsuit
Pilots Nationwide Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Review Product Liability Lawsuit 150 150 CMZ Law Lufkin/Houston

When it comes to defective products, commercial airliners are probably one of the last pieces of machinery consumers would want to see malfunctioning – especially at 30,000 feet in the air. As technology advances, aircraft become more and more intricate – and presumably safer for commercial passengers. However, tragically, airplanes can be susceptible to faulty parts, inadequate assembly or defective design – which inevitably leads to product liability litigation.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a controversial decision in a product liability lawsuit involving the issue as to what jurisdiction – state or federal – has final say in the compliance of a particular aircraft design with regulatory guidelines. In sum, the appeals court concluded that state law controls with regard to the requisite “standard of care” needed when considering claims of aircraft malfunction, notwithstanding the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) comprehensive guidelines – which may or may not overlap with a particular state’s standards.

The case emerged in 2005 following the fatal crash of a Cessna 172N after, as plaintiffs allege, the engine shut down shortly after takeoff. The aircraft was recently fitted with a new carburetor – pursuant to federal standards – which plaintiffs assert was the main cause of the failure. At odds in the case are the state law standards of care and safety, and the federal standards. Under this case, the Third Circuit adopted the notion that the states can decide the requisite level of care necessary in aviation product liability claims, which has caused much chagrin in the aviation industry. In the appeal of the Third Circuit’s decision, the national Pilots Association filed an amicus brief encouraging the Supreme Court to not only grant review of the case, but issue an opinion in favor of the FAA having final say in the standard of care required in the manufacturing and design of all aircraft nationwide.

For a products liability attorney in Lufkin, Texas, call today!

To learn more about products liability actions, please contact our law office today: 

Another Day, Another Samsung Recall
Another Day, Another Samsung Recall 150 150 CMZ Law Lufkin/Houston

Everyone knows laundry day is dull; but an exploding washing machine is hardly the solution to the bore of the chore. Hot on the heels of the Samsung Galaxy S7 explosion issue, the company is now facing a slew of claims that their washing machines contain a similar malfunction – which has dangerous property damage and increased risk of injury. As a result, the company voluntarily recalled three million washing machines in early November, and have warned users to immediately stop using the product until a replacement can be installed.

According to consumers, a malfunction in the drum of the machine can cause the lid to “violently” pop off, which could severely injure anyone standing nearby. In the words of one individual with the issue, the lid popped off violently it actually penetrated the wall of her garage.

According to the company, if the machine contains bulky bedding or other heavier items, it can cause the drum to dislodge from its components during the spin cycle. As a result, the machine will begin vigorously vibrating, which in turn causes the lid to eventually dislodge. Samsung has warned consumers to stop using the washing machine immediately, particularly when washing large or water-resistant items.

Under product liability laws, despite issuing a voluntary recall, the company could still face liability for placing an unreasonably dangerous product in the marketplace. As a manufacturer of consumer goods, Samsung is responsible for warning consumers of known risks, as well as risks the company should have uncovered through testing and troubleshooting. Liability will be an even greater issue if it comes to light the company knew about the malfunction and did not take steps to correct it and/or warn consumers. In a typical product liability action, a consumer can win compensation for any physical injuries or damage to surrounding property. If a consumer product causes an extremely debilitating injury, or the total effects of the injury have yet to be determined, a plaintiff may win an even greater sum.

Contact an experienced personal injury law firm today!

If you would like to discuss your personal injury case with a team of professionals, please contact Chandler Mathis & Zivley today: 1-800-657-2230.

Millions of Defective Catheters Recalled
Millions of Defective Catheters Recalled 150 150 CMZ Law Lufkin/Houston

How does the FDA’s 501(k) clearance rule put consumers at risk?

Four million catheters reported to be defective have been recently recalled. Because catheters are used in so many common medical procedures, it is expected that many personal injury lawsuits are in the offing. If you have suffered a personal injury as the result of catheter usage, you should contact a skilled defective drug and medical device attorney to advise you of your best options. An experienced personal injury lawyer will help you to obtain the compensation you’re entitled to.

What are catheters?

Catheters are flexible tubes inserted through a narrow openings into body cavity. Though most people think of urinary catheters first, the catheters that have been recalled are those used for other medical procedures, such as injecting dye for angiograms, or removing small blood clots from veins and arteries (thrombectomies).

The Defect in the Devices

The problem with the affected catheters is the fact that they are prone to degrade and fracture. There have been incidents in which catheter tips and other components have broken or separated, resulting in serious patient injuries, and even in patient death. The riskiest aspect of these fractures is that parts of the catheter, once broken loose, are capable of floating freely in the bloodstream and traveling to the heart, lungs, or other vital organs. The presence of these flecks of foreign matter in these organs can be disastrous.

Questions of Liability

It has not yet been definitively determined at what point during manufacture the catheter defects occurred. Many manufacturers have recalled various models of a great many catheters. These manufacturers include Cook Medical, Boston Scientific, Centurion, Medtronic, and Vascular Solutions. Investigators are now looking into the possibility that corners have been cut in attempts to streamline costs, resulting in products that are less sturdy and more prone to fail during use. One aspect of the investigation is focused on whether having products manufactured offshore, in an attempt to improve efficiency and lower costs, has resulted in inadequate testing and insufficient supervision that may underlie the problems.

Why 510(k) Clearance Is Problematic for Consumers

Because the field of medicine in this country is profit-driven as well as life-giving, manufacturers are always trying to lower their bottom line at the same time as they create and improve medical devices. This can sometimes result in insufficiently tested materials hitting the market.

Of concern to many is the 510(k) Clearance, a loophole of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) designed to allow medical products to come to market more quickly.

This regulation, to the dismay of some who seek to protect the public, allows an existing product to be updated without rigorous clinical testing if its design is similar to that of the device already on the market. Unfortunately, there is room in the 510 (k) clearance for missing alterations that may present serious risks to patients.

 

Invokana Lawsuits: Miracle Diabetes Medication or Defective Drug?
Invokana Lawsuits: Miracle Diabetes Medication or Defective Drug? 150 150 CMZ Law Lufkin/Houston

What are the problems with Invokana?

Since the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated federal cases in New Jersey last month, the number of lawsuits involving Invokana, a medication designed to treat Type II diabetes, has risen steadily. By December 15, 2016, 63 cases involving problems with the medication had already been filed; by January 17, 2017, that number had jumped to 100! Attorneys all over the country expect this number to continue climbing.


If you have suffered ill effects from Invokana, you should contact a personal attorney in your state who is experienced in working on cases involving defective drugs. Since drug companies are known to be particularly difficult to fight, it is essential that you have a highly competent personal injury attorney to vigorously defend your rights.


What type of personal injuries are associated with the use of Invokana?

Hundreds of patients have suffered injuries due to their use of Invokana. During the 2 years since Invokana was approved by the FDA, that agency has received over 100 reports of serious kidney damage. This led to stronger warnings of risk of kidney injury being placed on the Invokana label. In addition to kidney injury, Invokana has been associated with the following serious medical issues:

  • Heart attack
  • Stroke
  • Respiratory failure
  • Diabetic ketoacidosis

Legal Actions

Four patients have died after being hospitalized for adverse reactions to Invokana, two of them as a result of heart attacks. Invokana lawsuits are being brought to court on behalf of loved ones whose deaths were due to reactions to the drug. Cynthia Freeman, whose husband died at the end of 2016, filed a lawsuit on behalf of him and herself against Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that markets Invokana in the United States.

Concealed Knowledge

The Freeman lawsuit alleges that Janssen has concealed, and continues to conceal, its awareness of “unreasonably dangerous” risks connected to Invokana. The suit asserts that Janssen failed to warn the public about the drug’s risk, and engaged in negligence and fraud when marketing the product

Rights of Victims in Alcohol-Related Accidents in Texas
Rights of Victims in Alcohol-Related Accidents in Texas 150 150 CMZ Law Lufkin/Houston

What are dram shop and social host liability laws?

In the United States, if you are injured as a result of another individual’s intoxication, you can file a personal injury lawsuit claim against that person. Many people are unaware, however, that (in some situations) you can also sue the establishment (e.g. bar or restaurant) that served alcohol to the person the person who harmed you if it was clear that he or she was already intoxicated or if he or she was a minor. The laws governing the latter are known as “dram shop” laws since “dram” was once  a common term for a portion of whiskey.


There are also instances in which you can sue the host of a party who knowingly served alcohol to a minor or to an obviously intoxicated person who then harmed you. These laws vary state to state; this article deals with the pertinent laws in Texas. If you have been injured by a drunk driver in Texas, you should investigate your legal options with a knowledgeable personal injury attorney.


Texas Dram Shop Law

Establishments that sell alcohol in Texas may be held liable for an injury caused by an intoxicated patron, but only under the following conditions: [1] the alcohol was sold or given to a minor under the age of 18 or [2] the customer was obviously intoxicated when the alcohol was sold or given, posing “a clear danger” to the safety of self and others. In order for the case to proceed, it must also be evident that the intoxication was the “foreseeable cause” of the injuries incurred.

It is clear, even to a casual observer, that there are many subjective terms in the wording of these laws which make proving a case very difficult. “Obviously intoxicated,” “clear danger,” and “foreseeable cause,” are all phrases open to interpretation.


Signs of Intoxication

Generally, signs of intoxication are considered to be slurred speech, an unsteady gait, clumsy or uncoordinated movements, red eyes, and breath smelling heavily of alcohol. Such signs, however, can be indicators of other physical conditions — a fact that the defending attorney is likely to use. This is where having an experienced lawyer on your side is essential in proving your case. If the consumer of alcohol is underage, however, all bets are off, and the plaintiff is at a clear advantage. In the case involves serving alcohol to a minor, the dram shop law can be implemented even if the customer does not appear to be intoxicated.

Social Host Liability

Beyond the dram shop law, Texas, like many other states, has a social host liability law which allows a person who has been injured to seek damages from any host over the age of 21 who provides alcohol to a minor who is under the age of 18. There are certain criteria, however, that must be met for this law to be enforceable: [1] the adult in question must not be the parent, guardian, spouse, or legal custodian of the minor and [2] that adult must have knowingly served or provided the alcoholic beverage to the minor or allowed the minor to drink on his or her property.

Damage Limits in Dram Shop or Social Host Claims

In Texas, a dram shop or social host liability claim is a civil lawsuit. The plaintiff (the injured party) can file the case against the establishment or individual (the defendant) who provided the alcohol to the intoxicated person. In cases won by the plaintiff, the defendant is found legally responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries. Liability means that the defendant owes damages to compensate the plaintiff for whichever of the following apply:

  • Medical bills
  • Lost wages, including lost future earning capacity
  • Lost or damaged property
  • Pain and suffering

Time Limits in Dram Shop or Social Host Claims

In Texas, the time limit for all injury claims, including dram shop and social host liability claims, is 2 years from the date the injury occurred.

Practice Areas of Attorney Houston Tx Legal Practice Areas $27.8 Million Victories Liquid Natural Gas Storage Victories