Stoughton / Canton Area Personal Injury Lawyer

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

Risks of Ortho Evra

Carrie Strasser — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:58:23 GMT

The Boston Globe reported yesterday on the risks associated with the birth control patch, Ortho Evra, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson. The article reported the story of an otherwise healthy 17-year-old, Adrianna Duffy, who recently died from a pulmonary embolism after being on the patch.

Thousands of lawsuits have been brought against the makers of Ortho Evra, Johnson & Johnson, by women who used it and suffered heart attacks, strokes, or blood clots. At least 20 of the women named in the lawsuits died after using the patch. Though sales of the drug have plummeted by about 75 percent since word of its side effects spread, at least 2 million women still use it, and it’s still approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

So far, Johnson & Johnson has paid out $70 million to settle the suits. Claims arose that Johnson & Johnson was ignoring the risks that were associated with such high estrogen levels. Although Johnson & Johnson has dismissed these claims, it has changed the label on Ortho Evra three times to show its estrogen levels and to warn of the possible risks associated with such high levels.

Sidney Wolfe, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen, says that the estrogen levels in Ortho Evra are far higher than in birth control pills and these levels greatly increase a woman's risk for blood clots.

For more information on prescription drugs and their associated risks, click here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Carrie Strasser

Reverse Mortgage Abuses

Bruce Bierhans — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:37:11 GMT

What a surprise! An article in todays SanFran Chronicle reports that reverse mortgages have "the potential to spawn another subprime-style financial crisis." This, according to a report released by the National Consumer Law Center in Boston.

The report discusses "aggressive marketing tactics" that pressure elders to use RM loan proceeds to purchase other potentially inappropriate financial products, such as annuities, and even things such as luxury items.

A reverse mortgage permit homeowners over 62 to receive a lump sum, periodic payments or credit line checks. The borrower doesn't make mortgage payments, but interest and fees accumulate over the life of the loan and the loan must be paid when the borrower dies, sells or leaves the home for more than one year. The interest compounding feature can be quite a problem. The article discusses the story of one woman that learned, when she went to refinance her home, that she owed over $600k on a home that was worth only $120k. She had only received $120k in payments on the loan.

The state of California has legislation pending that would establish a suitability checklist for reverse mortgages. The NCLC report recommends that anyone that arranges a RM establish that they are acting in the best interest of the senior.

As in all matters, you are your own best guardian. Of course, a responsible attorney can guide you through the decision making process. Borrowers beware!

Bruce A. Bierhans

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bruce Bierhans

CPSC Urges Parents Not To Use "My Baby Soother" Pacifiers

Chrissie Cole — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:17:00 GMT

Parents and caregivers should stop using the “My Baby Soother” pacifier, according to a recent safety alert by The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

The pacifiers, distributed by T & L Trading Corp, fail to meet federal safety standards because the nipples can easily separate from the base, posing a choking hazard to infants and toddlers.

The agency announced a safety alert after the company refused to recall these pacifiers.

The recalled pacifiers have a ring-shaped handle and a blue, pink, red, white or yellow heart-shaped mouth guard. The packaging displays the words "My Baby Soother."

The agency urges parents to take the pacifiers from infants and toddlers and discard them.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Replacement Torch Fuel Containers Recalled By Lamplight Farms

Chrissie Cole — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:37:06 GMT

Lamplight Farms Inc. is voluntarily recalling 720,000 Flame Guards on Clear-Vu Torch Fuel Containers because they can malfunction and cause the containers to melt while in use, posing a fire hazard.

To this date, 35 incidents of the fuel containers melting while the torch was in use have been reported to the company. One report included a minor burn injury.

The recalled fuel containers have “RC” stamped on the flame guard. The items were sold nationwide at home improvement, discount and hardware stores from January 2008 to August 2009.

Consumers should contact Lamplight to receive a free repair kit. In the meantime, the recalled flame guards should not be used.

Consumer Information: Contact Lamplight toll-free at (866) 671-7988 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday - Friday, or visit www.lamplight.com

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

FDA Approves Stelara To Treat Psoriasis

Chrissie Cole — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:09:00 GMT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved a new biologic drug called Stelara for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis in adults.

Known generically as ustekinumab, the drug is injected in the skin and works by blocking part of the body’s immune system. After the initial shot, patients get another shot in four weeks and then one shot every 12 weeks.

Psoriasis is a chronic disease of the immune system that appears on the skin, usually in the form of thick, red, scaly patches. The disorder affects as many as 7.5 million Americans. About 30 percent of psoriasis sufferers also develop psoriatic arthritis. The condition is associated with other serious health conditions such as diabetes and obesity.

“The approval of Stelara provides an alternative treatment for people with plaque psoriasis which can cause significant physical discomfort from pain and itching and result in poor self-image,” Julie Beitiz, MD, of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Stelara is manufactured by Centocor Ortho Biotech Inc. a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson of New Brunswick, N.J.

For more information on psoriasis, visit the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole