Each year, thousands of Americans are injured or killed on roads and highways simply due to poor road conditions. Poor conditions can be a result of natural events like flash floods or ice storms, but dangerous conditions can also result from poor upkeep and physical condition. Even though there are state and federal laws in place that require cities to maintain safe roadways, it’s impossible to ensure that every single road is totally safe.
As a parent, all you want to do is protect your child. But, when it comes to the unexpected, it’s not so easy to cover every angle, especially when it comes to staying on top of product recalls.
Product recalls are issued when the government and manufacturer remove a product from the market because it is found to be dangerous, causing serious risk of harm. They exist to protect people of all ages from faulty merchandise.
Most baby product recalls are covered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CPSC. The CPSC receives hazardous product warnings and advisories in different ways. Sometimes, a company will find a flaw in their own internal testing. Other times, sadly, that flaw won’t be found until a child is injured or killed.
Recalls are due to many factors. One of the largest causes is
Getting in a car accident is a scary experience. When you add the stress of having to negotiate and file a claim on the accident on top of that experience (and any injuries incurred), then you’ve got a real nightmare on your hands! But, with a little preparation and advice, it doesn’t have to be. Here’s what you should know:
The Five Elements of a Claim
A vehicle injury claim involves a series of negotiations between you and the driver-at-fault’s insurance company. The goal of these negotiations is simple - to get you, the claimant, the highest possible settlement.
Before you jump into negotiations, you must first understand that claims adjusters are expert negotiators; they will use their expertise and terminology to try to confuse you in hopes that you’ll accept a lower settlement. These proceedings may seem intimidating, but once you understand the process and terminology, you’ll be ready for action.
Medical malpractice is a term many are familiar with, or have at least heard in passing. But, do you really know what it means? It’s much more than just a dissatisfied customer.
Medical malpractice occurs when a patient is harmed by a doctor or nurse who fails to provide proper health care treatment. Legally, medical malpractice means that a doctor or medical provider must have been negligent in some way (i.e. the provider was not reasonably skillful or competent, resulting in harm to a patient).
It is understood when examining the medical field that on a small scale, mistakes will be made. However, within that small scale, certain types of errors do crop up more often than others. These are the top five most common types of medical malpractice:
Misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis make up the majority of medical malpractice complaints. In such a complex field as medicine, mistakes are going to be made. However, often a physician’s negligence will cause them to completely overlook obvious signs and symptoms in a patient. These oversights might mean that a patient misses out on treatment opportunities that could have prevented serious harm or even death.
For those of you who are only just tuning in to the problems with IVC filters, we’ll give you a quick rundown (before we dive into the update). C.R. Bard is a New Jersey-based medical device manufacturer. They are a giant in their industry, and until recent years, were a trusted source of medical devices for healthcare providers across the country. Bard is one of 11 manufacturers who make inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, and while the majority of filters are implanted without issue, those produced by Bard have caused nothing but problems over the years.
Bard’s “recovery” filter was given FDA clearance in 2002, and it didn’t take long for the troublesome reports to begin rolling in. According to NBC:
A confidential study commissioned by Bard showed that the Recovery filter had higher rates of relative risk for death, filter fracture and movement than all of its competitors. An outside doctor hired to conduct the study wrote that "further investigation…is urgently warranted."