Stoughton / Canton Area Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics

Protect Your Personal Data!!

Bruce Bierhans — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:21:58 GMT

We all know that identity theft can be an enormous problem for a victim, and the risk of such theft is enhanced by our use of computers. Our own Supreme Judicial Court has recognized the gravity of the problem, and effective September 1, the court adopted a policy known as "Interim Guidelines for the Protection of Personal Identifying Data in Publicly Accessible Court Documents".

An SJC press release states that the guidelines "were developed to begin to protect personal information in public documents....". Unless an exemption applies, court filings may no longer contain the complete number of any of the following information: social security number, taxpayer id number, credit card number, financial account number, drivers license number, state issued id card, passport number, or maiden name of a person's mother. Any filings may only contain the last 4 digits of any number or only the first initial of the mother's maiden name.

Think of how often a vendor, store clerk, or other individual in the daily course of business requests any of the above information. Not that it's a great revelation, but the action of the SJC does serve to stress the importance of the confidentiality of much of the above referenced personal data. Whenever you are asked for this data, you should question why it is necessary for the inquirer to possess and ask whether or not there is any reasonable alternative to providing the requested information.

When you're out shopping this holiday season, protect yourself and your identity! Happy Holidays!

Bruce A. Bierhans

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bruce Bierhans

New Proposal to Examine Drug Safety

Carrie Strasser — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:54:22 GMT

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that a new plan to monitor the safety of drugs could identify a particular drug's risks long before they might have otherwise been discovered. The study that devised this plan was published Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

The authors propose a system to examine widely prescribed drugs through safety analyses that would pool data as they emerge from various clinical trials of a medication and aggregate the information for a fuller picture of a drug’s harms and benefits.

This database would be constantly updated as the results of studies were published. This could allow a "real-time" analysis of the various risks and benefits associated with certain drugs.

Dr. Joseph Ross is the lead author of the study and proposed this plan as a new model for post-market surveillance of drugs. Dr. Ross's study used Vioxx as an example and determined that Merck could have discovered the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx many years before it took the drug off the market in 2004.

Merck questioned the methods used by Dr. Ross and his colleagues in the study, stating that the categories used were too broad and included patients who suffered heart attacks after they had stopped taking Vioxx.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, stated that the type of cumulative analysis proposed by Dr. Ross's study requires an act of Congress. Although the FDA has increased its efforts to ensure drug safety in the past few years, critics call for Congress to grant the FDA more power and resources in order to provide detailed information to patients and doctors.

“There is this kind of dogma in medicine that you shouldn’t use any drug for the first seven years after it’s released, because it takes that long to figure out its harms and benefits,” said Dr. Michael Steinman, an assistant professor of medicine at the medical school of the University of California, San Francisco.

While there are many proponents of the study and its potential to identify drug dangers even faster, some say the number of drugs on the market today would make it nearly impossible, and perhaps too expensive, to cumulatively track every single one of them.

For more information on the FDA and prescription drugs, click here.

To read the study, click here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Carrie Strasser

Stork Craft Recalls Two Million Baby Cribs

Chrissie Cole — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:47:00 GMT

Stork Craft Manufacturing, in conjunction with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), announced a voluntary recall of more than two million drop side cribs.

The agency is aware of the deaths of four young children who suffocated in the cribs. Additionally, there have been 110 reports of incidents in which drop-sides detached from the cribs.

The recall includes 1.2 million Stork Craft cribs sold in the U.S. and one million sold in Canada. Approximately 150,000 of the recalled cribs carry the Fisher-Price logo.

The federal government has recalled nearly 5 million cribs in the past two years -- many of them with drop down sides.

The cribs have had ongoing hardware and assembly issues. In January, the Stork Craft recalled about 500,000 cribs because of problems with metal brackets that support the mattress. The new recall includes some of the same models from the earlier recall, CPSC said.

Consumers are urged to contact Stork Craft for a free repair kit that will convert the drop-side crib to a fixed side. In the meantime, the recalled cribs should not be used.

For more information on the recall, visit the Stork Craft Web site or call the company toll free at (877) 274-0277. #

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Car Crashes Into Gulf Station In Stoughton

Chrissie Cole — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:15:00 GMT

A vehicle went through the side of a garage at the Gulf Station following a two-car collision.

There was significant damage to the garage and both vehicles, but no one was injured in the crash.

The accident happened near the intersection of Turnpike and Page Streets at 7:45 a.m., when two vehicles, a Ford pickup truck and Saturn collided, according to Stoughton Fire Department. The accident caused the Saturn to crash into the building.

While people were in the garage at the time of the accident, no one was reported near the area of impact. The person in the truck was also uninjured.

The vehicle went through a panel of the garage and ruined some equipment but there was no serious structural damage.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Burn Hazards Prompt Recall of Gas Grills

Chrissie Cole — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:02:00 GMT

Lucas Innovation Inc., in conjunction with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), announced a recall of more than 660,000 Perfect Flame SLG Series Gas Grills in the U.S. and 1,700 grills in Canada. The grills were sold exclusively at Lowes stores nationwide.

According to a news release by the CPSC, the burners can deteriorate causing irregular flames and some lids can catch fire, posing a fire and burn hazard.

To this date, the company has received 40 reports of fires from the burners deteriorating and 23 reports of the lids catching fire. The agency is aware of one eye injury which required surgery and 21 incidents of minor burns to the face, arms and hands.

The model numbers included in the recall are listed below:

Model	Replacement Burners	Replacement Lid
SLG2006B	Yes	No
SLG2006BN	Yes	No
SLG2006C	Yes	No
SLG2006CN	Yes	No
SLG2007A	Yes	Yes
SLG2007B	Yes	Yes
SLG2007BN	Yes	Yes
SLG2007D	Yes	No
SLG2007DN	Yes	No
SLG2008A	Yes	Yes

Consumers should stop using the recalled grills and contact LG Sourcing for a free replacement burner and, depending on the grill model, free replacement lid.

Consumer Information: Call toll-free at (888) 840-9590 anytime, or visit www.lowes.com

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Landlords Can Now Be Liable for Pit Bull Attacks

Bruce Bierhans — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:33:32 GMT

It has long been the law in Massachusetts, and in many other states, that if your dog causes injury, you are liable regardless of whether or not you were negligent. This is called "strict liability" and imposes automatic liability on the dog "owner".

However, if you were suing a landlord that was not the dog owner, you had to show that the dog had "vicious propensities" prior to the attack and that the landlord knew or had reason to know of those propensities.

In the case of Nutt v. Florio, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled that where the dog at issue was a pit bull, the issue of the landlord's negligence may go to the jury for a determination of whether or not "the dog had dangerous propensities, whether the defendants knew or should have known about them, and, if so, what actions would have been reasonable, in light of their duty as landlords to protect tenants from reasonably foreseeable risk of harm."

In effect, the court is saying that if a pit bull is involved, you don't necessarily have to show that the dog attacked in the past. The landlord's knowledge that a dog is or may be aggressive may impose a burden on a landlord to be alert for their tenants' safety, particularly where there are complaints from other tenants, or other evidence of "potential" aggression. As stated by Lawyers Weekly, a landlord may now be liable for injuries even though the landlord was not the animal's owner and there was no evidence that the animal had ever attacked anyone before.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bruce Bierhans

FINRA Issues "Auction Rate Securities" Phishing Scam Alert

Bruce Bierhans — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:10:48 GMT

Speaking of FINRA...FINRA has issued an alert to warn the public about an auction rate securites "phishing" scam. The scam attempts to take advantage of individuals who, unfortunately, have already been victimized by the purchase of these securities.

The email looks like it comes from FINRA and promises compensation from ARS settlements in exchange for personal information. It actually says the recipient is due $1.5million regardless of the amount of their ARS investment or loss. The email then "phishes" for personal information, including occupation, address and phone number.

The FINRA website is at www.FINRA.org.

Bruce A. Bierhans

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bruce Bierhans

Are Your Financial Advisers' Investment Recommendations "Suitable"?

Bruce Bierhans — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:19:09 GMT

Recently, I concluded a case in which I represented a financial adviser for one of the largest brokerage firms in the country against the firm itself. The firm was attempting to enforce a Non Compete clause in the advisers' employment contract. In fact, the adviser had left the firm because she felt she was being forced to sell products that benefitted the firm that were not necessarily "suitable" for the client/investor, and we defended the case on that basis. I have had many similar cases in which I have represented advisers.

It appears as if the "suitabilty" argument, as well as issues relating to the fiduciary obligations of advisers to their clients is finally being recognized by the industry, including FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority). FINRA reports that this year, investors won 45% of the decided arbitration cases, up from 37% in 2007. They further reported that "suitability" claims "predominated" in the years filings. Simply, suitability means that the fiduciary is required to make recommendations based upon the objectives and risk tolerance of the investor. As we argued in the above case, if the fiduciary is selling or recommending a product because it might impact his or her compensation, suitability is taking a back seat to the priorities of the brokerage house and the adviser. A recent example of these types of cases include the "auction rate securites debacle" (about which I have written in the past).

There are currently many debates taking place within the industry regarding application of the suitability standard and what agency within the industry should enforce the standard. As stated by the Texas securities commissioner. "We have to make sure that from a policy perspective that we don't allow capitalism to destroy itself."

As an indivudual investor, be your own watchdog! Ask your adviser questions. If you don't know why an investment is being recommended, inquire. Ask your lawyer or accountant for advice , but don't be quiet or passive. If you believe you were placed in an investment that was not suitable for you, take action. You are ultimately, your own best advocate!

Bruce A. Bierhans

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bruce Bierhans

Computer AC Adapters Recalled By Sony

Chrissie Cole — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:14:00 GMT

Sony Corp. is voluntarily recalling certain VAIO Computer AC Adapters because they can fail over time, posing an electrical hazard.

Four incidents of the adapters short circuiting have been reported to the company, none of which occurred in the U.S. There have been no reports of injuries.

The recall involves more than 69,000 AC Adapters with model number VGP-AC19V17 which was supplied for use with the following Sony products:

All-in-one VAIO Desktop Computers - VGC-LT series and VGC-JS2 series

VAIO Docking Stations - VGP-PRBX1 and VGP-PRFE1

Consumers should contact Sony for a free replacement AC adapter and in the meantime turn off the computer and unplug it to avoid the risk of injury.

For more information, contact Sony toll-free at (877) 361-4481 anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site at esupport.sony.com/ac19adapter.

The recall was announced in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

FDA Warns: Decorative Contact Lenses Can Harm Your Eyes

Chrissie Cole — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:21:00 GMT

With Halloween almost upon us, the FDA is warning consumers about unapproved use of decorative contact lenses that can harm your eyes.

These contact lenses are used to temporarily change the person’s eye color or to make their eyes look weird – for instance giving the wearer an “eye-of-the-tiger” look.

“Unauthorized use of decorative contact lenses is a year-round concern, but during Halloween people are more inclined to use them as a costume accessory,” says James Saviola, the Ophthalmic and Ear, Nose and Throat Devices network leader in FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

It is illegal for companies to market decorative lenses over-the-counter, yet consumers are able to buy them on the beauty salons, the Internet, video stores and various other outlets.

What troubles us is when they are bought and used without a valid prescription, without the involvement of a qualified eye care professional, or without appropriate follow-up care," says Saviola. "This can lead to significant risks of eye injuries, including blindness."

Unauthorized contact lenses of all types present risks to the eye that include corneal ulcers, corneal abrasion, vision impairment, and blindness.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole