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

        

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.

    

        

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.

        

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

        

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.