Poppe Law Blog

view all

Law News

Ketucky Legal Malpractice Attorney

Kentucky Medical Malpractice Attorney

Can't Wait For The Government To Pass Tort Reform in Your State? Here Is A Form You Can Sign That Voluntarily Opts Your Family Into Tort Reform. Is This What You Really Want? If So, Go Ahead And Sign It!!
Healthcare Spending Greater in Northeast States
D.C. Government pays $650,000 to guardian of mental patient who gouged eyes out, going blind.
A New York single mother had both breasts removed after a mix-up in a medical lab.
Hospital Residents Still Overworked

Accounting Malpractice Attorney

Unfair Insurance Practices Attorney

Kentucky Nursing Home Neglect Attorney

General

I would like to take this opportunity to write to your law firm and thank you for coming through for me when I lost hope in my previous attorney.
We will gladly be a reference for you, and we certainly will recommend you as the attorney to have in Louisville. You have a gift in the way you are able to communicate with your clients and within the legal system.
My father would have been so proud to know that his case was driven home with such passion and genius. Thank you for giving that jury every tool they needed to hold those people accountable for the torture they inflicted on my Dad.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you...
You have now made it possible for me to rest assured that I have everything I need now and in the future to cover the expenses of my disability

print page

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >

Kentucky Accident Attorney

6/1/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (1)

You Wont' Believe What This Trucker Was Doing When He Killed This Mother of Two....

Truck driver streaming porn and driving while sleep deprived runs his eighteen wheeler over a young mother of two.

Labels: 18-wheeler auto wreck lawyer big rig car accident car crash car wreck car wreck lawyer personal injury semi truck truck accident wrongful death

3/6/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

The Tort Reform Myth Explained....

Below is Andrew Cohen's insightful piece in the Atlantic....

Tort Reform Is Anti-Democratic (And Ingeniously Marketed)

Feb 10 2010, 9:52 AM ET

If President Barack Obama has to hand his adversaries a bauble in order to achieve success with health care reform, it might as well be the misnomer commonly known as "tort reform." The ends of providing insurance for millions of uninsured Americans, never mind whatever good it might do for the rest of us, is worth the means of giving Corporate America yet another legally-sanctified level of protection against the wailing interests of its customers, consumers, patients, and just plain innocent bystanders.

But let's not kid each other any longer. As we brace ourselves for yet another round of wrangling over the tail and not the dog, let's all stipulate that "tort reform" is one of the most blatantly anti-democrat concepts to have hit the legal system in the past century. It takes control over damage awards in many civil cases away from local judges and juries and gives them to state politicians, who often are just shills for their corporate campaign contributors and lobbyists. It protects corporations from punishment for their worst excesses. It diminishes good incentives for corporate carefulness and increases bad incentives for shoddy work and services.

"Tort reform is little more than a scam by an unpopular minority (corporations) against an enormous majority (anyone who is eligible to serve on a jury or who ever already has)." Wouldn't it be great if the President forced those words out of the mouth of the Chamber of Commerce president in exchange for even friendlier litigation rules for Big Business as it confronts changes to our national approach to health care?

I don't use the word "scam" lightly above. Supporters of tort reform, invariably corporatists and others who believe in this self-defeating supply-side notion of justice, have scammed or otherwise brainwashed millions of Americans into thinking that tort reform will save them from despicable "trial lawyers," a convenient target group in this ever-litigious world. But no 'trial attorney" ever went into the jury room and voted for a large verdict against a greedy corporation which purposely hid health risks from its customers. No "trial judge" ever put a gun to a foreperson's head and made that man or woman sign off on a big reward against an environmental polluter or tobacco company or maker of unsafe toys.

Instead, these verdicts came from jurors, one of the justice system's--one of all of governments'--few remaining unassailable cogs. Each time a jury awards a large sum to a plaintiff against a negligent defendant, it's a statement from jurors that the sort of conduct alleged and proven is worthy of punishment by the community. Sometimes, this is the only time in the lives of these people, these jurors, when they will have such an extraordinary say about the events of their time and place. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes they are wrong. But at least in these circumstances they make a difference based solely upon the fact that they are residents of a particular venue.

Make no mistake--the "reform" in "tort reform" is about eliminating or reducing the ability of trial juries to act as levelers of the playing field; as avengers of otherwise toothless victims; as the voice of a community in meting out justice. It is about helping corporations before individuals; about the bottom line and not the bottom rung. Alas, many of the same folks who tout individualism and freedom and liberty against government control evidently have no qualms about using support for tort reform as their ticket to worship at the Altar of corporate control.

The reason the topic is again in the headlines is because opponents of health care reform evidently don't have anything better to argue about in their efforts to stop passage of the pending legislation. Fine. The President and his fellow Democrats should concede on tort reform. And at the same time, he should figure out a way to track whether reductions in jury awards, and concomitant decreases in the costs of malpractice insurance, reduce the ultimate cost to consumers of health care and at the same time generate better quality of service.

Of course, we all know what the answers to those questions will be. Which now that I think about it is another thing we ought to be honest about.

Labels: personal injury tort reform trial

2/27/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Toyota Accelerator Problem May Have Caused Car Wreck That Led To Criminal Conviction

A man convicted of vehicular homicide following a fatal car wreck may be granted a new trial due to the sudden emergence of the Toyota acceleration problem.

Labels: auto wreck lawyer car accident car crash car wreck car wreck lawyer personal injury products liability

11/5/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Louisville Bat Maker Hit With $850k Verdict

WAVE 3 announced the verdict on October 28^th regarding the case against the maker of Louisville Slugger bats, Hillerich & Bradsby. Guilty. The Lewis & Clark County District Court in Helena, Montana found H & B guilty for failing to place a warning label on aluminum bats the company produced which played a role in the death of 18-year-old Brandon Patch in 2003.

Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of the Patch family and ordered H & B pay $850,000 in damages. In 2003, Brandon Patch was struck in the head with a baseball coming off of an H & B aluminum bat while pitching in an American Legion baseball game. Attorneys for the Patch family argued that Brandon did not have enough time to react to the ball being hit before he was struck by it. The plaintiffs contended that baseballs hit off of aluminum bats fly at a greater velocity than those off of wooden bats. Although the jury ultimately concluded that the Hillerich & Bradsby aluminum bat was made according to standards and not in any way defective, it still should have contained a warning label for users.

The Patch lawsuit is just one of several over the past few years against the company because of baseball related accidents. Included are a New Jersey family whose son suffered brain damage after he was struck by a line drive off of an aluminum Louisville Slugger and the parents of an Oklahoma teenager who endured severe head injuries after a similar incident according to an Associated Press article on the case. This is also not the first time aluminum bats have come under fire. Michael Rand of the Minneapolis Star Tribune recorded an account from eight years ago that listed numerous instances of aluminum bat related accidents and injuries. He mentions that before the 1999 baseball season, the NCAA adopted new rules relating to the size of aluminum bats which were copied by The National Federation of High Schools 2 years later.

The latest verdict is just one of many from the past and left to come against aluminum bat manufacturers. Hillerich & Bradsby Vice President of Corporate Communications Rick Redman released a statement following the verdict expressing the company’s condolences to the family but stated that it was an emotional court decision. Redman maintained that the company violated no rule governing the production of the bat and stated, “The verdict that our company ‘failed to adequately warn of the dangers of the bat’ has left us puzzled. It seems contradictory for the jury to say the bat is not defective but our company failed to warn that it could be dangerous. It appears to be an indictment of the entire sport of baseball.” Reactions to the ruling have resulted in mixed responses but Hillerich & Bradsby have no plans for an appeal.

Labels: personal injury trial

10/25/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

DWT--Driving While Texting. Death on Kentucky Roads

Will Kentucky pass laws prohibiting texting while driving? Well, there is a bill pending in the Kentucky state legislature that could do exactly that in 2010.

Rep. Rick Nelson, D-Middlesboro, has prefiled a bill for consideration during the 2010 regular session that would make “texting” while at the wheel a no-no. It also would prohibit drivers under the age of 18 from using any cell phone. Violators would face $50 fines.

The Kentucky State Police’s annual report for traffic collision stated there were a total of 962 reported accidents caused by cell phones in 2008. The true number is actually much higher, but a lot of people will not admit to using their phone at the time of an accident.

A study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institution concluded that a driver who is texting is 23 times more likely to be involved in an accident. But even if the bill is passed, it could be difficult for police to enforce.

According to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, some statistics show that nearly 6,000 people were killed and more than half a million were injured on America's roads last year in crashes linked to texting or talking while driving. As a result, more than 25 states have created some type of law restricting drivers from texting while operating their vehicles and many states have already proposed similar legislation, though it has not yet been passed.

Nevertheless it seems some states have been sending mixed messages, almost literally, when it comes to texting while driving according to a USA Today article from mid September. In the piece, Associated Press writer Andrew Demillo explains the possible contradiction resulting from certain states, including those with cell phone laws, sending traffic updates to drivers via text message or Twitter updates. The states argue that these updates are not cause for concern because they stress to drivers to check their messages and updates prior to leaving for their destination. However there are times when these “tweets” turn into an exchange of conversation between motorists and state officials, as demonstrated in Demillo’s article one user posted, “any idea what's going on westbound on 520? It's worse than rush hour..," and within a few minutes, officials responded: "Yes! There is a disabled vehicle just east of Lk Wash Blvd blocking right lane." The danger arises when these types of exchanges are being conducted while moving.

Amidst the talk of texting bans, one large group of motorists was at first absent from the conversation, truckers. In a report by Montana’s News Station, High Plains Owner and Operator Doug Landru was quoted in response to distracted drivers saying, “People don't realize they're sitting in a 4,000 pound weapon.” On the same token, distracted truck drivers are often behind the wheel of roughly 80,000 pounds and in most cases doing so while operating cell phones, radios and even laptops. But to that, Landru commented that to him a cell phone and internet are vital and Oregon trucker Edwin Parrish agreed saying, “Being able to check my text messages or my email messages, I'm able to know when I'm supposed to be some place.”

Fox 4 out of Kansas City, MO reported that several trucking companies are concerned about a texting ban because they use on board computer systems for communication. Nevertheless, a study at Virginia Tech University found that truckers driving while using the computers were 10 times more likely to have an accident. Often, the devices are disabled for use while driving, but not all are turned off and there is no way to tell whether or not they are being used while operating the vehicle. According to LaHood, the Obama administration will ban texting by truck drivers and restrict the use of other in-cab technologies as part of its effort to eliminate distracted driving.

Texting while driving has become such an issue in Kentucky that a statewide media campaign has been launched including a public service announcement by a Louisville girl involved in a wreck due to texting.

Labels: 18-wheeler auto wreck lawyer car accident car crash car wreck car wreck lawyer negligence personal injury semi truck truck accident

8/26/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Hans Interviewed on 840 Whas On Commonwealth Dodge 100mph Accident Case

Francene of the Francene Show on 840 WHAS read my recent blog and wanted to know more about why Commonwealth Dodge may be liable for the deaths of two people involved in the 100 mph test drive that resulted in a car wreck this weekend. The interview aired live this morning.

You can download the interview here:

Labels: auto wreck lawyer car accident car crash car wreck car wreck lawyer negligence personal injury speeding wrongful death

8/23/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (2)

Is Commonwealth Dodge Liable for Fatal Wreck on Fern Valley Rd

Tragedy happened today in Louisville, Kentucky when a Dodge Challenger on a test drive from Commonwealth Dodge was involved in a fatal crash with a Mercury Sable. The two occupants of the Sable were both killed and the driver of the Challenger was arrested. According to some news reports, the Challenger may have been driven at a high rate of speed. Wave 3 news reports witness Rick Lee said, "I heard the car racing down through here and of course, they race down through here all the time, and it kind of got mine and my son's attention. When we got up to try to see the aftermath of what was going down the road, we heard an impact."

According to the Courier Journal, a Commonwealth employee was a passenger on the test drive.

This leads to the obvious question. Can Commonwealth be held liable for the two deaths. I see two potential ways the dealership can be held liable. First, liability insurance follows the vehicle. This means that the owner of the dealership must provide liability insurance for every vehicle on its lot. So, even though a Commonwealth employee wasn't driving, the dealer's auto insurance will still have to provide coverage.

The second cause of action against Commonwealth Dodge could be filed based on the conduct of its employee that was on the test drive IF it can be proven that the salesperson allowed the driver to speed or drive in a reckless manner. The dealership would be liable under the theory of respondeat superior, a legal term that means the employer is liable for the actions of its employees. Here, the dealer's Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy would provide coverage.

Here, it will be important to obtain as many witness interviews as possible as soon as possible. Unfortunately, memories fade and stories change the farther away in time interviews are conducted.

Hans

p.s. As a side note, this story was of particular interest to me because at age 18 I test drove, and wrecked, a Toyota MR2 while on a test drive. Fortunately, no one was hurt.

Labels: auto wreck lawyer car accident car crash car wreck car wreck lawyer negligence personal injury speeding wrongful death

7/29/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (2)

Why The Michael Jackson Wrongful Death Lawsuit May Be Worthless....

Well, it hasn't been filed yet, but there's no doubt its coming-- a wrongful death lawsuit by the Estate of Michael Jackson. Some lawyers are calling it the "mother of all medical malpractice lawsuits."

Well I say, "not so fast my friends." The wrongful death lawsuit may be virtually worthless. Here's why.

The primary component of damages that the Jackson Estate would be allowed to claim in a wrongful death suit is the loss of future earning. This would include concert ticket sales, royalties from albums, and commercial endorsements, any appearance fees, etc. In fact, Jackson was scheduled to start a 50 show tour later this year.

So, it should be simple to calculate the loss to the Estate, right? You simply hire an expert economist, an expert promotor, an expert music producer and manager and you have them estimate how much MJ would have earned over his projected lifetime. That would then be the loss to the Estate and it would then have the right to recover that amount amount from the negligent parties (assuming there are any).

That is would typically happens in wrongful death cases, albeit it on a much smaller scale; however, here, that formula may not work for one simple reason....

Celebrities often make more after their death than when they are alive. Or, to put it another way, Jackson's Estate may INCREASE in value as a result of his death.

For example, according to Forbes Magazine, in 2007 Justin Timberlake pulled in $44 million; Madonna $40 million. Not bad by anyone's standards. But compare that to Elvis Presley's $52 million and you start to see where I'm going. Elvis has been dead for 32 years yet his Estate is making more today in one year than he made over his entire career when he was alive. In fact, Elvis even has his own station on Sirius Radio.

Every October, Forbes compiles its list of the 13 richest dead celebrities. In 2008, the ranking were as follows:

The Lucky 13

Elvis Presley ($52 million)
Charles M. Schulz (Peanuts + Snoopy = $33 million)
Heath Ledger ($20 million)
Albert Einstein ($18 million in 2007, think Baby Einstein videos!!!)
Aaron Spelling ($15 million)
Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel)($12 million)
John Lennon ($9 million)
Andy Warhol ($9 million)
Marilyn Monroe ($6.5 million)
Steve McQueen ($6 million)
Paul Newman ($5 million)
James Dean ($5 million)
Marvin Gaye ($3.5 million)

This will likely be the case with Jackson's Estate as well. The "King of Pop" will likely equal or surpass the "KIng of Rock N Roll" in the post-death celebrity earnings category. Let's face it, when you think Hollywood you think James Dean and Marilyn Monroe, but when you think music, you think of Elvis and Michael.

In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, it may have already started. According to an article about Apple's projected earning in the WSJ, "Michael Jackson’s death did move some recordings. According to The Journal’s Ethan Smith, U.S. retailers sold 415,000 albums by Michael Jackson in the four days following his June 25 death, according to Nielsen’s SoundScan. That’s compared with fewer than 10,000 copies that were sold in the previous full week. Over half of those sales were digital downloads made on services such as iTunes and Amazon.com’s AmazonMP3." Apparently, Jacksons fans appreciate his music more now that he's gone. Interesting.

And that, my morbid readers, is why the Jackson wrongful death lawsuit may not be frivolous, but it may be worthless.

hans

Labels: lawsuit medical malpractice michael jackson personal injury wrongful death

7/27/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

How (Not) to Hire a Lawyer....

Previously, I posted The Truth about TV Advertising Lawyers. I later learned I wasn't the first person to point out the obvious. Aaron Larson, a Michigan attorney, has a website devoted to answering the question "how to hire a lawyer."

On it he discusses the benefits of hiring a contingent fee attorney, "Many attorneys take certain types of civil suits, particularly personal injury cases, on a "contingent fee" (or "contingency fee") basis, where they do not charge an attorney fee unless they recover money for you. Please note that there are legal costs involved in litigation, and that ordinarily you will be required to repay those costs even if you lose. Almost every state limits contingent fees for personal injury and workers' compensation cases. If your case is potentially worth a lot of money, you may be able to negotiate a reduction of the attorney's contingent fee -- however, the best personal injury attorneys are sometimes able to recover substantially more money for their clients than attorneys with lesser skills, resulting in a greater award to you regardless of the percentage taken by the attorney." (emphasis added)

He goes on to explain "One of the best ways to find an attorney is to consult an attorney you trust. If you do not know any attorneys, ask your friends for names of attorneys they trust. It is not important that the attorney can handle your case -- what is important is that the attorney is likely to comprehend the issues of your case, and is well-positioned to know which attorneys in your community have the skills to handle your case. Even if the attorney cannot personally take your case, he will often be able to refer you to an attorney who can."

He also cautions, "A number of commercial on-line directories claim to screen their attorneys, or claim to list only highly qualified attorneys. Most are not being completely honest. Regardless of their promises, most on-line directories will list any attorney who pays the required fee, and there is absolutely no guarantee that the listed attorneys are qualified to handle your case."

And finally, he issues the same warning I did in my post. "Should I hire the guy with the 1-800 number, and all of the ads on TV?

Generally speaking, television and radio advertisements are a bad way to find an attorney. Many advertisements are paid for by referral agencies, which collect large numbers of calls and then divide them up between member attorneys. Even when the advertisements are paid for by a law firm, often many of the cases are referred out to other firms who share the enormous cost of advertising. Most of the time, the attorney with the big advertising campaign will not have an office near you. Unless your case is worth a lot of money, you may well find that you are quickly referred to a different firm or that you can't get much attention for your case. There is something very important to remember, when it comes to hiring a personal injury lawyer -- some of the best personal injury attorneys do little or no advertising. They get their cases through "referrals" from other attorneys, due to their reputations for doing good work and getting good results. Should I hire the guy with the big "yellow pages" ad? If you look at the "full page" ads in the yellow pages, you will likely find that there are two types. The first type is an ad for a local attorney, who has chosen to pay for the full page. The second type is an ad for an attorney from outside the area, sometimes from the same attorney who runs the huge television ad campaigns. Typically, the biggest ads are from "personal injury" firms, who hope that their large advertisements will bring them large numbers of injury cases. The better personal injury attorneys and firms typically do pay for full-page ads. However, as was previously noted, some of the best personal injury attorneys do little or no advertising at all. Also, there are many attorneys who buy the largest ad that they can afford, in order to make their practices appear better than they really are. If you look through the yellow pages, you will see that most attorneys claim to specialize in "personal injury" cases. Many of these attorneys have handled very few personal injury cases, and some have never had even a single personal injury case. The yellow pages can provide some degree of confirmation that a particular law firm is established, but even a big advertisement does not certify that a firm is qualified to handle your case."

Hans

Labels: advertising attorney contingency fee injury ads lawyer personal injury tv lawyer

7/3/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

"Admit nothing. Deny as much as possible. Stall. Protect, protect, protect. Blame somebody who isn't here to protect himself."

"Admit nothing. Deny as much as possible. Stall. Protect, protect, protect. Blame somebody who isn't here to protect himself." Rick Bozich, Louisville Courier Journal, Max Gilpin, The Real Loser in JCPS Report, July 1, 2009

Bozich's article was a scathing indictment of the "investigation" into the death of a 15 year old boy during football practice at a Jefferson County, Kentucky public high school. The death, and the tragic circumstances surrounding it, have made national news.

However, this post isn't about that. Instead, this post is about why no one should be surprised that a defendant would refuse to accept responsibility for its actions.

As a lawyer that represents people that have been injured as a result of someone else's negligence or misconduct, I see defendants utilize this above strategy everyday in litigation.

Blaming the victim has long been the strongest weapon in a defense attorney's arsenal. And it matters not what kind of case it is. Failure to diagnose breast cancer? The patient should have sought out a second opinion when her first doctor told her she was cancer free. Rear-end car wreck? Injured driver had a pre-existing condition that is unrelated to the accident. No matter what the kind of case, the defendant always seeks to shift responsibility to the injured party. Without fail.

And it works. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is read any of the comments to any online newspaper article and you will see post after post blaming the victim instead of the wrongdoer (most recently in the Louisville Zoo lawsuit they blame the victims and their lawyer, too).

I find this behavior inconsistent with the oft spoken mantra of tort reformers that we need more "personal responsibility." It seems that what people really want is for innocent injured people to take responsibility for someone else's snegligence. How else can you justify blaming injured patients when their doctor makes a mistake? You can't. At least you can't do so and remain intellectually honest. Tort Reform = Tort Deform

The simple fact of the matter is that deny, delay, defend and blame is business as usual for defendants in litigation, especially corporate defendants and insurance companies.

Sorry, Bozich. Sadly, that's just the way it is. And not just for poor Max Gilpin's family, but for any person that gets injured and seeks justice.

Hans

Labels: car accident insurance litigation negligence personal injury tort reform

6/11/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Leveling The Playing Field...

Recently, a local Louisville personal injury lawyer filed the first lawsuit against the Louisville Zoo for injuries his client received after the zoo's train derailed. Nothing unsual about it. Nothing unusual at all, including the sarcastic and baseless attacks that were launched against the attorney on the Courier Journal's website in the comment section following the story.

What people don't understand is that most personal injury lawyers don't file baseless lawsuits. There's no money in doing so. Trust me, insurance companies don't pay big money for frivolous claims (heck, they seldom pay big money for legitimate claims). A lawyer that works on a contingency fee (meaning she doesn't get paid unless she wins money for her client) has no incentive to file a lawsuit and incur thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses getting the case ready for trial. Think I'm exaggerating? I'm not, in my last three trials we spent in excess of $100,000 getting each of them to trial.

Contingency fee lawyers are just like any other business owner, they must turn a profit to pay the salaries of their employees, the rent, and other overhead and expenses. If they fail to do so, they are not in business long. My respected colleague John Day in Nashville has a great post on this topic.

Hans

Labels: attorney insurance lawsuit personal injury tort reform

5/4/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

FDA Warns "Stop Using This Diet Drug RIght Now."

One of the fundamental problems with most diet supplements is that they don't have to go through a Federal Drug Administration approval process. There are simply too many diet supplements on the market for the FDA to test, approve and monitor all of them. This leads to a lot of products we put in our bodies being untested by any meaningful organization to ensure they aren't harmful.

Because the FDA isn't involved in the process on the front end, the best they can do is to ask that products be pulled on the back end, once there is a question about safety. That's exactly what happened this past week went the FDA warned consumers to STOP using the popular diet and energy supplement Hydroxycut.

You can see an Associated Press video of the recall here:

"The Food and Drug Administration said the company that makes the dietary supplement has agreed to recall 14 Hydroxycut products. Available in grocery stores and pharmacies, Hydroxycut is advertised as made from natural ingredients. At least 9 million packages were sold last year, the FDA said. Dr. Linda Katz of the FDA's food and nutrition division said the agency has received 23 reports of liver problems, including the death of a 19-year-old boy living in the Southwest. The teenager died in 2007, and the death was reported to the FDA this March. Other patients experienced symptoms ranging from jaundice, or yellowing of the skin, to liver failure. One received a transplant and another was placed on a list to await a new liver. The patients were otherwise healthy and their symptoms began after they started using Hydroxycut." Katz went on to say "Part of the problem is that the FDA looks at dietary supplements from a post-market perspective, and an isolated incident is often difficult to follow." Public health researcher Ano Lobb, who has studied Hydroxycut and other dietary supplements for Consumer Reports, said "You really have to be careful about dietary supplements, especially weight-loss pills. People believe that the FDA has verified that these products are at least safe and effective, and that's really not the case. When you see fantastic claims _ that's generally what they are."

The recall covers the following 14 products:

The following products are covered by this voluntary recall:

Hydroxycut Regular Rapid Release Caplets
Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Rapid Release Caplets
Hydroxycut Hardcore Liquid Capsules
Hydroxycut Max Liquid Capsules
Hydroxycut Regular Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Hardcore Drink Packets (Ignition Stix)
Hydroxycut Max Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Liquid Shots
Hydroxycut Hardcore RTDs (Ready-to-Drink)
Hydroxycut Max Aqua Shed
Hydroxycut 24
Hydroxycut Carb Control
Hydroxycut Natural

I predict this will lead to mulitple lawsuits over the safety of the diet supplement for people who have possibly been injured as a result of using it. These lawsuits will likely be filed as a class action or, perhaps, individual lawsuits will be combined in a multidistrict litigation (MDL). A second kind of lawsuit will likely be filed for those consumers that weren't physically injured but who purchased an unsafe product and will not use any remaining product because of the recall. These consumer's are entitled to receive the purchase price returned becuase these sales likely violate various state's consumer protection laws. These claims can be brought by individuals or, perhaps, by states' Attorneys General.

I predict that hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits will be brought by users of Hydroxycut against the Canadian company lovate Health Sciences USA Inc.

If you want more information on the recall or your rights, feel free to contact us.

hans

Labels: class action consumer protection drug companies Hydroxycut lawsuit multi district litigation personal injury recall

3/19/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

$65 Million Dollar Semi-Truck Wreck Verdict

BARTOW, FLORIDA – A Polk County jury awarded a 21-year-old woman $65 million in damages Wednesday in a personal injury lawsuit against a trucking company.

“Trucking companies should get the message that they need to follow safety regulations designed to protect the public,” said Tampa attorney Jim Freeman, of Wilkes & McHugh, P.A. “This accident was preventable if the driver only waited for a clear view before turning.”

On Aug. 21, 2007, Kendra Lymon was a normal 19-year-old woman whose life was shattered when an 18-wheeler, owned by Bynum Transport Inc., T-boned her little Dodge Neon at the intersection of State Road 17 and State Road 64.

Kendra had no pulse when emergency personnel arrived at the accident scene. The lack of oxygen to her brain caused parts of it to die, and she suffered brain damage. She was in a coma, and hospitalized at Tampa General Hospital for months.

Today, she can’t speak. She can’t eat without assistance. She can’t control her bladder. She has trouble walking and sometimes needs a wheelchair. She needs around-the-clock care and continued rehabilitation, including physical, occupational and speech therapy.

Kendra was a beautiful young woman who knew what she wanted and worked hard to get it. She was a good student in high school, who participated in drama club and helped care for her siblings while their mother worked. Kendra loved to read and could speak six languages.

After graduating a year early from Hardee High School, she enrolled in South Florida Community College. She wanted to be a psychologist and was the first person in her family to attend college. She was about to enter her second year there when the accident happened.

Now she requires care and supervision 24 hours a day, seven days a week – and will need that for the rest of her life. Her medical bills alone are estimated to be more than $24 million over the span of her life, according to experts.

“She has suffered these terrible injuries needlessly,” Freeman said. “Kendra Lymon is one of the most deserving clients I’ve had in 30 years of practice.”

The defendants, Bynum Transport Inc. and driver Robert Bohn, tried to blame the accident on Kendra. Bohn claimed he had a green arrow, but eyewitness Ralph King said Kendra had a green light and wasn’t speeding. King said she tried to turn to the right, but by the time the truck entered her lane, there was no time to avoid it.

Bohn was fresh off a 24-hour shift as a full-time battalion chief for Polk County Fire Services when he headed to Bynum Transport Inc. for his part-time gig. Just after 8:30 a.m., he picked up a red 1997 Freightliner tractor and 2004 trailer, which together weighed 28,000 to 30,000 pounds. The plan was to haul a load of juice to Georgia that day to make some extra money.

But Bohn didn’t have 10 hours of off-duty time before driving the Bynum truck that day. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Rules require such a break because driver fatigue is biggest cause of truck accidents.

And Bynum Transport, where Bohn had worked part-time since 1993, didn’t have any system to crosscheck what the driver told them. They didn’t monitor Bohn’s hours of rest. The Driver’s Log he filled out the morning of the accident shows zero hours of work for each day in the week before the accident, despite the fact he had just finished a shift at the fire department. Federal regulations consider that or any other work the same as driving.

As Bohn approached the intersection of state roads 17 and 64, there was a tractor-trailer in the opposite turn lane, blocking Bohn’s view. Bohn turned left anyway, and he plowed into Kendra’s car on the driver’s side, crushing it and sending it spinning off the highway.

The Lymons, represented by Wilkes & McHugh, P.A. attorneys Jim Freeman and Bennie Lazzara, sued Bynum Transportation Inc. and the truck driver, Robert Bohn, for negligence.

The trial, which lasted over a week in the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court in Polk County, concluded Tuesday. The jury came back Wednesday with a unanimous decision: Jurors found the defendants were 100 percent at fault in the accident and awarded $65 million to the Lymons.

“With this verdict, the family – including her mother, uncle, aunt and siblings who have been caring for Kendra – can now afford to get her the professional help she needs,” said Tampa attorney Bennie Lazzara. “Doctors say with proper medical care, Kendra will have a normal life expectancy.”

Hans

Labels: 18-wheeler auto wreck lawyer big rig car accident car wreck car wreck lawyer lawsuit personal injury semi truck truck accident

2/12/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

The Myths of Arbitration

I hate mandatory arbitration agreements, especially in healthcare cases. Nursing homes force residents, or their family members, to sign these agreements before admission to the facility. They then injur the resident and hide behind the arbitration agreement to shield them from have a jury pass judgment on their care in an open courtroom that is subject to public scrutiny. Many of these companies, and the legislators whose pockets they line with campaign contributions, point to all sort of supposed "benefits" to arbitration. These benefits are mostly myths:

THE ARBITRATION FAIRNESS ACT
MYTHS AND FACTS

The Arbitration Fairness Act (AFA) would continue to allow voluntary arbitration while preserving the right to trial by jury. The bill would prohibit a corporation from forcing a consumer into a rigged mandatory arbitration system where the corporation hand-picked the arbitrator and all of the rules of the process before a dispute even occurred.

Myth: The AFA prohibits arbitration.
Fact: The AFA encourages voluntary arbitration; it only prohibits corporations from forcing mandatory clauses on consumers without them having a chance to negotiate the terms and often without them knowing about it.

Example: When admitting his father into a nursing home, Charles Miller Jr. signed a lengthy contract that, unbeknownst to him at the time, contained a binding mandatory arbitration clause. His father was not seen by a physician until three weeks after his admission, during which time he lost 19 pounds and suffered from dehydration and pneumonia, all of which led to his death. Charles Miller Jr. filed a claim against the nursing home corporation, but a court held that because he had signed this contract, he would be forced into arbitration for his claims against the nursing home, under the terms the nursing home corporation chose to put into the contract. Because Charles Miller Jr. had unknowingly signed a contract that contained a mandatory arbitration clause before any dispute had arisen, he was bound by its terms, no matter how unjust.

Myth: Most consumers favor binding mandatory arbitration.
Fact: Consumers favor voluntary arbitration and being given the choice to arbitrate. Would an employee with a claim against Halliburton want Halliburton deciding how her claim should be handled? Would a homeowner with a claim against his home contractor want the contractor deciding how his claim should be handled?

The Chamber of Commerce's recent study, which purported to show that voters did not support HR 3010, asked voters: "If you could choose the method by which any serious dispute would be settled between you and the company, which would you choose?" (Emphasis added.) But what they didn't tell these voters is that binding mandatory arbitration takes away a consumer's choice. Under the current system, consumers are not allowed to choose which option is best for them. They are not allowed to choose to file a claim in court nor are they allowed to choose who the arbitrator will be, or even what state they will have to arbitrate the claim in. Instead, they are forced into an arbitration system that is set up to favor the corporation and trample on the rights of the consumer. When consumers are given the choice to arbitrate after a dispute has arisen, they gain bargaining power and are better able to enter into an arbitration system that is fair.

Myth: Arbitrators are neutral, unbiased decision-makers.
Fact: Binding arbitration favors corporations because only corporations are repeat users of arbitration companies.
If an arbitration company wants to be used in a company's mass consumer or employment contracts, the arbitration company has a huge financial incentive to appear favorable to those businesses in arbitration proceedings. Why would a company choose an arbitrator that rules against them?

Myth: Arbitration is cheap and more accessible to consumers.
Fact: Arbitration is so expensive that most consumers will not be able to pursue their claim against a corporation because they can't afford the costs of the arbitrator.

Under mandatory arbitration clauses, consumers must pay steep filing fees just to initiate a case-seldom less than $750 – and pay their share of the arbitrator's hourly charges, which are routinely $400 or more per hour. All these fees must be deposited in advance and almost always amount to thousands of dollars. In addition, arbitration clauses often allow the corporation to choose the location, regardless of how inconvenient or costly travel will be for the consumer.

Myth: Arbitrators are like judges; they have to follow the law and publicly state the reasons they made their decision.
Fact: Arbitrators are not bound by any laws. They do not have to follow the law and they don't have make public or even provide to the consumer any explanation for ruling the way that they did.

Most arbitration clauses require that proceedings be kept confidential, even if the case raises important public policy issues. As a result, only the corporation can track past decisions and know which arbitrators have ruled for them. In addition, arbitrators do not set or follow judicial precedent, something our judicial system requires to ensure consistency and fairness in legal proceedings.

hans

Labels: arbitration attorney lawsuit medical malpractice negligence nursing home abuse nursing home neglect nursing homes personal injury tort reform wrongful death

2/9/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Drunk Driver Kills Friend in 1993 and then Female UK Co-Ed in 2008

A Kentucky man was recently convicted following a hit and run truck wreck that took the life of University of Kentucky Co-ed Connie Blount; however, this was not Shannon Houser's first run in with the law, nor is it the first time he has had a car accident that has killed someone.

In 1993, Houser was arrested and charged with DUI manslaughter following a car wreck on Russell Cave Road in Lexington, Kentucky that killed his friend . Houser received probation after his victim's parents wrote Judge Mary Noble asking for leniency.

In 2008 Shannon Houser struck Connie Blount, 18, with his pickup in the early morning of April 13. Blount, who investigators have said crossed Broadway against the light, had knelt down in the street, according to testimony. Houser then left the scene of the wreck.

Last Thursday, a Fayette County, Kentucky jury found Houser guilty of attempting to tamper with evidence, and not guilty of marijuana possession. Later Thursday, the jury unanimously recommended that Houser be sentenced to five years for the tampering charge and one year for leaving the scene of an accident. Judge James Ishmael set the sentencing hearing for March 6, 2008. The jury recommended a six year sentence.

It's unlcear whether Blount's family filed a civil suit against Houser, but if they did Houser could he held liable for compensatory damages (pain and suffering and the loss of Connie's power to labor and earn money) as well as punitive damages for Houser's gross negligence. As an interesting aside, in a civil case, it may not even be admissible that Hanover left the scene since it wouldn't be relevant to the question of whether Hanover was negligent in causing the wreck (according to testimony, Connie was kneeling down in the middle of the street when the wreck occured).

Based on Houser's criminal record, I doubt he would be the type of responsible person that purchased enough insurance to compensate for such an enourmous loss. This is a good example of why it's important to purchase Uninsured and Underinsured coverage of your own. This type of insurance protects you if someone else causes an accident and doesn't have enough insurance. Talk your agent about this after reading my Free Special Report; Secrets to Buying Car Insurance

hans

Labels: auto wreck lawyer car accident car crash car wreck car wreck lawyer drunk driver DUI negligence personal injury truck accident wrongful death

1/28/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

What Event Precedes The Day Most Car Wreck Occur...

According to research from the University of California at Berkeley School of Public Health, the first snowy day of the year is substantially more dangerous for drivers than other snow days in terms of fatalities. Fatal accidents were 14% more likely on the first snowy day of the season compared with subsequent ones, according to research compiled from 1975 to 2000. Fatal accidents were 7% less likely on snowy days on the whole, when compared with good-weather days. The chances of having a fender-bender, on the other hand, increased.

Tomorrow we'll reveal the most dangerous driving day of the year.

Hans

Labels: 18-wheeler auto wreck lawyer big rig car accident car crash car wreck car wreck lawyer drunk driver negligence personal injury semi truck truck accident wrongful death

1/27/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Most Dangerous Month of The Year to Drive...

As we told you yesterday, there are certain times of day you are more likely to be involved in a fatal car accident thatn others, but is there one month that is more dangerous than the others? According to the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, August had the most total deaths on the road in 2008, a 1.1% decline from 2007, according to NHTSA data. A total of 3,612 people died that month. NHTSA reports that when counted as fatalities per 100 million vehicles, August has a fatality rate of 1.42--an increase of 0.06 since 2007 and 0.10 points higher than September and June.

Tommorow we'll reveal what event precedes the day that most fatal car wrecks occur.

Hans

Labels: auto wreck lawyer car accident car crash car wreck car wreck lawyer lawyer negligence personal injury truck accident wrongful death

1/26/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

The Most Dangerous Time of Day to Drive is ...

If you don't want to be killed in an automobile accident, there are certain times of day that you should avoid being on the road. According to the International Institute for Highway Safety, an average 6.6 people are killed between the hours of 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., and another 6.6 between the hours of 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. Those rates are the overall highest of any time during the day. In 2007, 14,055 people were killed in the 5 p.m. hour. But the hours between midnight and 4 a.m. have the highest number of fatalities when calculated as a percentage of the amount of people on the road, according to AAA. During that time, statistically speaking, 5.87 per 100 million people on the road will be killed.

Tommorow we'll reveal the most dangerous month of the year to drive.

Hans
ps Download our Free Report- What The Insider's Don't Want You To Know About Semi-Truck Wrecks.

Labels: auto wreck lawyer car accident car wreck car wreck lawyer drunk driver personal injury truck accident wrongful death

1/25/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

What is The Most Dangerous Day of the Year to Drive...

July 4, Independence Day, historically has been the most dangerous day of the year to drive, according to the IIHS. In 2007, 926 people were killed in auto accidents on July 4.

Tomorrow we reveal "The Ten Worst Winter Driving Mistakes."

Hans

Labels: 18-wheeler auto wreck lawyer big rig car accident car crash car wreck car wreck lawyer drunk driver negligence personal injury semi truck truck accident wrongful death

1/1/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Kentucky to Receive $2.3 Million From Drug Maker in Settlement

Attorney General Jack Conway has announced the Kentucky will receive $2.3 million dollars in a negotiated settlement with drug manufacturer Cephalon. The settlement arises out of a lawsuit filed by several states Attorneys General that allege the drug company marketed their products for off-label uses to doctors. The drugs involved are Actiq, a painkiller, the anti-epilepsy drug Gabitril and the narcolepsy drug Provigil.
In October, Cephalon agreed to pay over $375 million to settle the civil case, $40 million in criminal fines and forfeited $10 million.
hp

Labels: drug companies personal injury settlement

12/8/2008
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Radcliff Man Dies in Fatal Louisville Wreck With Drunk Driver...why his estate might not have a case

According to the News Enterprise, a Radcliff, Kentucky man died Friday in a fatal car crash on the Gene Snyder in Louisville.. Even though the other driver was intoxicated, the deceased's estate may not have a good case against the drunk driver. That's because the Radcliff man was not wearing a seat belt and was ejected from the car.
Kentucky has a seat-belt defense that prevents someone from recovering for their injuries if a wearing a seat-belt would have prevented them
In order to succeed, his estate will have to prove that even if he had worn a seat belt, he still would have suffered severe injuries or death. In situations such as this, we usually hire a biomechanical engineer and an emergency room physician to evaluate the forces and injuries to determine whether a seat belt would have prevented the injuries or not. Tough case.

hans

Labels: auto wreck lawyer car accident car crash car wreck car wreck lawyer drunk driver negligence personal injury wrongful death

12/7/2008
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Kentucky Truck Driver Turns Himself In After Fatal DUI Wreck...

On December 4th, I posted about a settlement arising out of a semi-truck wreck that paralyzed a young boy. The driver of the truck was under the influence of drugs. When I posted the entry, I didn't realize that just the day before, a kentucky truck driver had been charged in a fatal truck wreck that took the life of an Indiana man. The Kentucky truck driver tested positive for Cocaine.

According to an Evansville television station, a truck driver involved in a fatal collision in July turned himself in December 3rd on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated causing death. Delbert Majors, 53, of Corydon, Ky., was being booked into the Vanderburgh County Jail at 9:30 a.m. Bond was set at $20,000 as part of a warrant issued for his arrest. Initial toxicology tests conducted after the wreck revealed Majors had cocaine in his system, Evansville Police Department spokesman Steve Green said. Evansville resident Raymond Ferrari, 56, was killed in the July 29 accident on Evansville's West Side. Ferrari, driving a Pontiac Sunfire, was northbound on Rosenberger Avenue and trying to turn left onto the westbound Lloyd Expressway. A Robinson Engineering oil-rigging truck, driven by Majors, was traveling east on the Lloyd through the intersection. Green said authorities determined Majors ran the red light. "Investigators say toxicology reports now show Majors had cocaine in his blood at the time of the accident July 29th. He crashed his oil truck into Ferrari's car."
According to the report, Ferrari's estate has filed a civil lawsuit against Robinson Engineering.
What will be interesting is to see whether Majors has any history of abusing drugs or alcohol and whether Robinson Engineering have any policies and procedures to test drivers periodically to ensure they are not abusing substances.

To learn more about semi-truck wrecks, download our free E-Book: What The Insiders Don't Want You To Know About Semi-Truck Wrecks.

You can also watch our video titled: The Six Things You Must Know If You've Been In a Car or Semi-Truck Wreck.
hans

Labels: 18-wheeler auto wreck lawyer big rig car accident car crash car wreck car wreck lawyer drunk driver Indiana negligence personal injury semi truck truck accident wrongful death

11/17/2008
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Think You're Safe In Your Hummer? Think Again...

If you are ever involved in a car wreck or semi-truck accident you probably think you want to be in the biggest, heaviest automobile or suv; however, you may be surprised to know that one of the vehicles everyone thinks is safe, isn't. As a lawyer that represents people who were hurt or killed in car or truck wrecks, there aren't many things on which I can agree with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, but even I pay attention when they do their annual surveys on the safest vehicles.

According to the report released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the safest mid-size SUV was the 2009 Nissan Murano. What might surprise most is that the Hummer H3 had one of the poorest showings. The General Motors' H3 was the only vehicle in the group that did not receive the top rating for frontal crash protection and, even more disturbing, it received the lowest rating, "poor", in the rear crash test. Of important note, the H3 and the Chrysler Jeep Liberty and Dodge Nitro are all three built on the same platform.

So, just because its big doesn't mean its safe. Do your research by reading the full 5-page report here and drive safely.

Here are the Institutes "safest" vehicles:

Top Safety Pick 2008 award winners

Large cars

Audi A6

Cadillac CTS

Ford Taurus with optional electronic stability control

Mercury Sable with optional electronic stability control

Volvo S80

Midsize cars

Audi A3

Audi A4

Honda Accord 4-door models

Saab 9-3

Subaru Legacy with optional electronic stability control

Midsize convertibles

Saab 9-3

Volvo C70

Small car

Subaru Impreza with optional electronic stability control

Minivans

Honda Odyssey

Hyundai Entourage

Kia Sedona

Midsize SUVs

Hyundai Veracruz built after August 2007

Saturn VUE built after December 2007

Subaru Tribeca

Toyota Highlander

Volvo XC90

Small SUVs

Honda CR-V

Honda Element

Subaru Forester with optional electronic stability control

Large pickup

Toyota Tundra

Hans Poppe

Labels: attorney car accident lawyer personal injury truck accident

11/17/2008
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Poppe Law Firm Involved in $900,000 Louisville FELA Verdict Against CSX Railroad

Sorry to be so long in posting, but we were in trial with Hal Bailey of Atlanta Georgia and Will Moody, Jr. of Virginia, both of Moody, Strople, Kloeppel & Higginbotham, Inc. A Louisville jury awarded our client, Paul Fairchild, $910,000 in a Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) case against CSXT Railroad.

In 2003, Paul was operating a ballast regulator when his supervisor stopped a fuel truck across the tracks at the crossing Paul was approaching. While Paul tried to stop the regulator as quickly as he could, there was too much grease on the rail and Paul and his regulator slid 250 feet into the fuel truck.

The wreck caused Paul to suffer a severe neck injury that resulted in a two level neck fusion and a permanent impairment that has disabled him.

This Louisville, Kentucky jury took their charge seriously and deliberated almost 8 hours before coming to their verdict. We believe it is a verdict they should be proud of.

Hans

Labels: attorney car accident lawyer personal injury truck accident

11/17/2008
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Automobile and Semi-Truck Accidents Are a Serious Problem in Kentucky

So, I was talking with a non-lawyer friend of mine the other day and he was telling me how lucky we are to live in Louisville--because "we don't have that many car accidents. "
WHAT!!??
While I certainly agree we are lucky to live in Louisville, it certainly has nothing to do with the number of car wrecks. In fact, Kentucky as a whole has statistically more injuries and fatalities involving semi-trucks than other states, probably because of the convergence of I-264 (Watterson Expressway), I-65 (Martin Luther King Highway) and I-64 and I-71, all in Louisville-- this is commonly known around here as Spaghetti Junction.
If you are ever involved in an automobile accident, you should do the following:

If someone is injured, you should call for help immediately. Provide basic first aid but don't move an injured person unless you have medical training.
Make note of the time of day, any weather factors that may have contributed to the accident, the position of the cars, etc.
Courteously exchange information with the other parties involved such as names, addresses, phone numbers, driver's license numbers, insurance companies and policy numbers, if possible.
If there were witnesses to the accident, get their names and telephone numbers. If the police are called, make a note of the reporting officer's name.
Report the accident to your insurance agent or company as soon as possible, even if you were not at fault.
And, if you were injured, and the accident was not your fault, hire a lawyer.

Download our Free Report on Semi-Wrecks.
Hans

Labels: attorney car accident lawyer personal injury truck accident