Utah Justice Blog- Providing Commentary on Personal Injury Law
Published by The Faerber Law Firm, P.C.


Monthly Archives

More About Mr. Faerber . . .

Mr. Faerber received his undergraduate degree in Economics from the University of Utah. He also earned his Juris Doctor degree (Law Degree) from the University of Utah, where he was a member of the Utah Law Review. He was a William H. Leary Scholar in both Torts and Criminal Law, receiving the highest grade in the section for those courses. Mr. Faerber has an extensive background in litigation, including medical malpractice, automobile injury, premises liability, and product liability actions. He has obtained numerous other large settlements and awards on behalf of clients. Mr. Faerber has served as a chairperson on hundreds of pre-litigation screening panels for the Utah Department of Professional Licensing screening medical malpractice claims for merit along with physicians and hospital administrators. This experience has given him a unique insight into medical negligence claims. Mr. Faerber has served as an adjunct instructor at Salt Lake Community College, teaching Torts and Introduction to Law to Paralegal students. Mr. Faerber is a member of the Utah Bar Association, the Utah Trial Lawyers Association, and the American Bar Association. Mr. Faerber has extensive expertise in the medical and scientific aspects of medical negligence and other injury cases. He possesses the knowledge, experience, and vision to maximize the value of your personal injury claim. Mr. Faerber is married and has two young sons.

Subscribe


Utah Injury Law

The Faerber Law Firm, The Lance Firm, and Marler Clark File First National Steak and Poultry E. coli Lawsuit


The first E. coli lawsuit against National Steak and Poultry (NSP), an Oklahoma meat manufacturing facility, was filed today in the Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake City. The civil suit was filed by by Utah attorneys Jared Faerber and Dustin Lance and Seattle attorneys Marler Clark on behalf of a child sickened in the E. coli O157:H7outbreak linked to NSP beef products. The lawsuit also names as yet unidentified"John Doe" companies that may have been involved in distributing the tainted meat products.


The recall linked to National Steak and Poultry was announced on Christmas Eve 2009. It included 248,000 pounds of beef products potentially contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, a toxic pathogen. NSP announced the recall after the USDA and CDC became aware of a cluster of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses linked to the product in six states. Ultimately, the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak was expanded to twenty-one people in 16 states. The victims live in California, Colorado,Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio,Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington State. According to the CDC, most of the people sickened in the outbreak fell ill between mid October and late November; nine were hospitalized; and one person developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a life-threatening complication, as a result of their E. coli infection. Most of the meat was distributed to restaurants.

According to the lawsuit, Utah resident "CD" was infected with E.coli O157:H7 in October 2009. Within days of consuming contaminated meat, he began to experience severe E. coli symptoms including agonizing abdominal cramps and diarrhea that soon turned bloody. When his symptoms worsened, his parents rushed him to the ER at Columbia Lakeview Hospital in Bountiful, Utah where he was diagnosed with gastrointestinal bleeding; his parents were ultimately directed to take him to Primary Children's Medical Center due to his deteriorating condition. CD remained hospitalized at Primary Children's Medical Center in Ogden, Utah from November 2 through 4, 2009. He was diagnosed with infectious colitis, and a stool specimen that he submitted during his hospitalization soon tested positive for E. coli O157:H7. CD's parents learned from officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the strain of E. coli O157:H7 that had infected their son matched the outbreak strain linked to the defendant National Steak Processor's beef products.

The lawsuit was filed by Utah attorneys Jared Faerber of The Faerber Law Firm, P.C. and Dustin Lance of The Lance Firm, P.C.  together with Seattle, Washington lawyers Marler Clark.   Mr. Lance and Mr. Faerber are experienced Utah trial lawyers, and have both previously represented Utah residents sickened by contaminated food products. Moreover, both Utah counsel have worked with Mr. Marler and his firm on past foodborne illness cases within the State of Utah.

For more information contact Jared Faerber at (801) 990-3225

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Patients' Rights Should Not Be a Bargaining Chip in Health Care Reform Debate

Posted by Jared Faerber of The Faerber Law Firm, P.C.

    Some have used the current health care reform debate as an opportunity to introduce so-called tort reform.  "Tort reform" being code for limiting or restricting a patient's right to recover in medical malpractice claims in Utah and throughout the nation.  The reality, however, is that the direct costs associated with medical malpractice are a tiny fraction of health care costs in the United States.  According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the total spent defending claims and compensating victims was $7.3 billion dollars in 2007.  This is just 0.3% of health care costs of $2.2 trillion for the same period. 

   Clearly, compensating victims of medical malpractice is not a driving force in the skyrocketing costs of health care.  Reformers then argue that so-called "defensive medicine" is driving up the costs.  Defensive medicine is the dubious assertion that doctors are frightened into ordering billions of dollars worth of unnecessary tests to avoid litigation.  This is a red herring.  The medical malpractice law in Utah and other states does not require a doctor to order unnecessary tests to comply with the standard of care expected of a physician or other health care professional.  In fact, ordering completely unnecessary tests is arguably malpractice itself because it subjects the patient to unwarranted risks associated with a test without a benefit.

    A 2008 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the evidence of defensive medicine is "not conclusive, and whether limits on malpractice torts have an impact on the practice of medicine has been subject to some debate."  The CBO also noted that "some so-called defensive medicine may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the income it generates for physicians or by the positive (albeit small) benefits to patients."  It should be remembered that in a fee-for-service environment, each procedure or test ordered by a doctor generates income to that doctor or the hospital and clinic, which are often owned by the physician. 

   The bottom line is that is it wrong to attempt to shift the burden of malpractice onto the victims themselves.  Real savings to the health care system could be achieved in Utah and throughout the nation by reducing medical and surgical errors.  According to the Institute of Medicine as many as 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors.  The costs associated with these errors are estimated to be as high as $29 billion annually.   This does not include those severely injured and traumatized by preventable medical errors.

    

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Salt Lake Medical Malpractice Lawyer Discusses Nerve Compression and Burns During Surgery

By Jared Faerber of The Faerber Law Firm

    No one expects to report for an abdominal or knee surgery and come out of the operation with a permanent nerve injury or burn to a completely different part of the body.  Yet this occurs more often than necessary in Utah hospitals and surgical centers.  It is often the result of malpractice. 

    Improper positioning and padding during surgery can lead to compression neuropathy, A condition wherein nerves become compressed or entrapped due to trauma, pressure, and inflammation.  The result can be permanent loss of nerve function, numbness, pain, and weakness.  Although procedures such as carpal tunnel release can improve symptoms, many nerve injuries are permanent and disabling.  Surgical patients also occasionally suffer burns during procedures due to the misuse of heating pads. 

    How can a patient's lawyer in Utah prove a compressional neuropathy or burn resulted from negligence during a surgical procedure rather than from some other cause?  After all, the patient is completely unconscious and has no way of knowing exactly what occurred during the procedure. 

    Utah law is uncharacteristically favorable to injury victims in these cases.  The legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may allow the injured party to raise an inference of negligence.  Simply put, res ipsa applies when the injury is the kind of thing that usually doesn't happen unless someone made an error, the defendants had control of the situation, and the injured patient did not cause their own injury.  See Baczuk v. Salt Lake Regional Medical Center, 8 P.3d 1037 (Utah Ct. App. 2000). 

   As a Utah medical malpractice attorney, I have successfully brought these types of claims for injured plaintiffs.  I have helped those who have suffered ulnar neuropathy, compartment syndrome, and other injuries during surgery.  They are not easy claims, even with the favorable law, as defendants will sometimes contest the severity of the injury even if they admit liability.  Yet injury victims deserve a fair opportunity to recover for situations they did not expect or create.  I enjoy helping patients reach this goal.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Utah Car Accident Lawyer Reveals Insurance Industry Dirty Secrets

Jared Faerber of The Faerber Law Firm


Insurance companies deliberately delay, deny, and defend automobile accident injury claims in Utah and other states around the country.  CNN and Anderson Cooper, among others, have conducted extensive investigations to reveal these types of practices in the insurance industry. 

 

Former insurance industry insiders have reported strategies implemented by many insurance companies to limit and deny legitimate claims in minor injury cases.  As a result, insurance companies have reaped billions of dollars in profits.  Have the companies passed on these profits to consumers in the form of lower premiums?  Hardly.  Premiums are as high or higher than ever. 

 

Three elements were the focus of the strategy: delay, deny and then defend the claims in court.  The insurance industry claims these strategies were not to be used against legitimate claims, but only to fight fraud.  The individuals highlighted in CNN’s report, however, say otherwise.  Injured parties would be forced to spend years and years in court in an attempt to resolve even small claims.  In my years of experience as a Utah personal injury lawyer, I’ve also seen insurance companies such as Allstate, State Farm, and Farmers deny legitimate claims and fight aggressively to avoid paying fair value. 

 

The insurance industry has also fought a new Washington State law requiring insurance companies who deny legitimate claims and later lose in court to pay three times the damages, plus attorneys’ fees.  Known as the Fair Conduct Act, this law passed the legislature and was signed by the governor of Washington.  Insurance companies have filed a referendum to try to get the law off the books.  They have spent millions on television commercials and other advertising to defeat the law.   If the industry is only using its deny, delay, and defend strategy on fraudulent claims, why are they so afraid of this law? 


According to the story, in 2005, homeowner’s and auto insurance companies made a record 44.8 billion in profits, a 19% increase from 2004.  The industry again made record profits in 2006, and continued to do well in 2007.  Of course there is nothing wrong with making a profit, but doing so through dishonest practices on the backs of the injured is horrible. 


For the complete CNN story, see:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvPW087RiJ8&feature=related

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Utah Dog Bite Lawyer on Dog Attacks and Utah Law

Brought to you by The Faerber Law Firm

A dog attack may last only a few seconds, but the physical and emotional scars can last a lifetime. Utah law is appropriately favorable to victims of dog bites. Under Utah law, a dog owner is liable for injuries caused by his or her dog whether or not that dog has previously bitten others or shown signs of being vicious.   Lawyers call this strict liability, or liability without fault.  It is an easier standard than negligence because it does not require the plaintiff to show carelessness on the part of the dog owner.  While there are still some defenses in Utah, generally, all a plaintiff must show is that the defendant owned or kept the dog and that the dog harmed the plaintiff. 

In my experience with these types of cases, there is often insurance coverage available, specifically home owner's insurance,  to satisfy claims made against dog owners.  Dog bite victims should remember that they may need future medical care such as scar revision surgery from a plastic surgeon.  In other cases I have handled, the victims required physical therapy to rehabilitate damaged muscles.   It is also important to remember that scars, particularly on the face, can result in permanent psychological damage and self-esteem issues. 

Another tragic aspect of these types of cases is that most of them are completely avoidable by the dog owners.  With proper training, socialization, control, and confinement, dogs can be safely kept. When these practices are not observed, terrible injuries can occur.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Safety, Booster Seats Save Children's Lives

Posted by Jared Faerber of The Faerber Law Firm.

An estimated 15 million U.S. children are still riding completely unbuckled, according to the National Safety Counsel.  This is an incredible statistic given what we know about the importance of proper restraint for children.

Experts say infants should be in rear-facing car seats, but may be moved to a forward-facing seat after their first birthday. Those from four to eight should ride in booster seats, according to safety officials, and all youngsters under the age of 12 should be in the back seat, away from air bags.

A recent Pennsylvania study found that children who weigh less than 80 pounds and use conventional seat belts are nearly four times more likely to be seriously hurt in a crash than youngsters sitting in safety or booster seats.

Children who don’t fit the seat belt properly can hit their heads on their knees, jerk forward and damage their spines, or slide out of the belt altogether.

Safety experts recommend that children up to age 4 be restrained in child safety seats and those older be placed in booster seats until they are large enough to fit properly in a seat belt, usually by age 9.

A booster seat allows a child to sit higher and fit better in the shoulder belt.

Roads in Utah and elsewhere are dangerous places.  We cannot control the driving patterns of others, so please do everything in your power to protect yourself and your loved ones.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Pharmacy Error Causes Utah Teen to Lapse Into Coma




By Utah Injury Lawyer Jared Faerber of The Faerber Law Firm


“This shouldn’t have happened. It was needless. It was senseless and
it’s changed lives forever, not just Jessie, but there are other people
who love him and his future.”


- Laurie Scott


This is from the mother of 18-year-old Jessie Scott, a resident of
Draper, Utah, who has been in a coma since the end of April because of
a medication error which occurred at a Walmart Pharmacy. His doctor
prescribed 5mg of Oxycodone Hydrochoride in a liquid solution to help
him with the ...<< MORE >>

Trasylol (aprotinin) Litigation

     CBS News' "60 Minutes" recently ran an excellent piece exposing the corruption and greed of some in the drug industry.  Trasylol (aprotinin injection) is used to stop bleeding during heart bypass surgery.  It was approved by the Food & Drug Administration in 1993. 

     A January 2006 New England Journal of Medicine article linked the use of Trasylol (aprotinin) to kidney damage, heart attacks and strokes. In addition, the same researchers completed a February 2007 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which found patients on Trasylol were at greater risk of dying over the next five years than those given two other medications.

    In an interview for the "60 Minutes" story, Dr. Dennis Mangano said the FDA should have pulled Trasylol following his NEJM study. "Between my study and November 5, when it was taken off the market, there were approximately 431,000 patients who received the drug. As I calculated, 22,000 lives could have been saved. It's about a 1,000 lives saved per month delay in taking that drug off the market," he said in the interview.

   The most disturbing part of this is that not until November 2007 did Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp., the manufacturer of Trasylol, agree to a marketing suspension. The marketing suspension came two weeks after a major Canadian drug trial was terminated because of an increase in deaths for cardiac surgery patients using Trasylol.

    The "60 Minutes" story also pointed out there are several other less expensive and safer alternative medications. 



 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Largest National Meat Recall Involves Utah

The New York Times reports on the largest meat recall in history.  Here is an excerpt from the story:

A California meatpacker accused of animal cruelty is making the largest U.S. meat recall on record -- 143 million lbs, the U.S. Agriculture Department said on Sunday.

Most of the meat, raw and frozen beef products, probably has already been consumed, said USDA officials at a briefing. Some 37 million lbs were bought for school lunches and other federal nutrition programs. USDA said there was only a minor risk of illness from eating the beef.  Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co voluntarily recalled all of its beef produced since February 1, 2006. USDA said Hallmark violated rules against the slaughter of "downer cattle" -- that is, animals too ill to walk.

"This is the largest beef recall in the history of the United States, unfortunately," said Agriculture Undersecretary Richard Raymond.  Based in Chino, California, Hallmark/Westland has been closed since early February. Company officials were not immediately available for comment.

The Humane Society of the United States showed videotapes on January 30 showing workers at the plant using several abusive techniques to make animals stand up and pass a pre-slaughter inspection. These included ramming cattle with forklift blades and using a hose to simulate the feeling of drowning.

    According to USDA reports, the meat-packing company has processed “non-ambulatory cattle,” creating a risk of contaminating meat products with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which affects nervous tissue.  It is also known as mad cow disease. 

    The USDA said that there is a “negligible” risk of contracting BSE from eating any of the recalled beef.  Let's hope they are right because even one victim is one too many. 

    There is also an increased risk of E. coli O157:H7.  "Downer" cows have approximately three times more E. coli o157:H7 than other cows. 

A UTAH CONNECTION:

    The Salt Lake Tribune today confirmed that some of the recalled beef was distributed to school lunch programs in Utah and consumed by Utah school children.  Utah schools have put a hold on ground beef from the Westland/Hallmark Meat Packing Company.   Luann Shipley of the Utah State Office of Education said all 29 school districts in the state had been notified of the hold. See the full story here:   origin.sltrib.com/ci_8295732 

    Again, health officials are saying the risk to human health is low.  For some reason, I don't feel completely reassured. 


 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Elderly Patients Deserve Better


    The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on Tuesday added more names to its list of under performing nursing homes, known as "special focus facilities."   One of them is in Ogden, Utah.  This questionable distinction belongs to the Mount Ogden Health and Rehabilitation Center.  It will now be inspected by state officials twice as often as those not on the list.  By releasing the list, the CMS hopes to get nursing homes to do the job right or get out of the business. 

    Kerry Weems, acting administrator of CMS, briefed the media stating that all the SFF facilities are "chronic under performers" that "have caused actual harm to residents at some point."

    Of course, just because a nursing home is not on the list doesn't mean it is safe.  I recently represented a family in a claim against another nursing home in Utah where an elderly man with Alzheimer's disease was allowed to wander unattended.  He fell out of a second story window to his death, only to be found hours later.  The necessary safeguards were obviously not followed. 

    As a Utah attorney, I have also seen cases involving decubitus ulcers (bedsores), falls, medication errors, and other abusive and negligent behavior in Utah nursing homes.  Our elderly loved ones deserve better.  Reporting substandard care facilities is clearly a step in the right direction, but my experience shows there continues to be room for improvement. 
 
Here is more from an article in the Deseret News:

"Being the sole Utah nursing home on the list doesn't mean it is or isn't the worst in the state, said Greg Bateman, long-term-care survey manager for the Utah Department of Health. CMS gave Utah a list of 15 facilities based on an undisclosed formula and asked it to pick one for consideration as an SFF program facility.

"Even though its most recent recertification survey was not very adverse, its history in the past three years included two surveys which cited 'immediate jeopardy,"' Bateman said -- including "one that showed actual harm to residents."

In its last full survey last May, Mount Ogden, 375 E. 5350 South in Ogden, was cited with several lower-level deficiencies "posing a potential for harm." Those all were corrected, he said. No facility "can go beyond six months in noncompliance" without being decertified.

Mount Ogden administrator Sam Hickcox said the serious deficiencies contributing to its poor three-year survey average occurred in 2005 and were one of the reasons Ensign Group, which owns and operates 64 facilities, bought it in July 2006. The company buys facilities "that are underperforming clinically and turns them around. That is our business. We feel like we're in the business of improving our industry," he said.

The new owners have made significant improvements, he said, including new equipment, beds and floors. The nursing home also has new management and upgraded clinical care and communication. Its census has risen from 49 to 61.

Each state is asked to look at certain facilities and suggest for the SFF list, "but that doesn't mean all of them make the list," says CMS regional spokesman Mike Fierberg. In cases where there's immediate jeopardy to a resident, it all goes out the window. Nursing homes are put on immediate termination track and are "toast unless they get this done. Stop what you're doing and fix this issue," he said.

Larry Minnix, president of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging and a strong advocate of pointing fingers at facilities that fail to perform well, hopes all the facilities on the list will be able to graduate.

"We're in favor of this effort," he said. Of nursing homes previously identified as poor providers, "a number have gotten better and stayed better for a period of time. There are some that haven't, and I hope CMS will cancel their contracts. We think they should be even more aggressive."





 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg