In a time of economic recession, Congress is advocating for budget cuts and other types of reform in order to stabilize the economy and create more jobs for thousands of Americans. But in trying to create more jobs for the numerous unemployed people, some reforms seem to create heated controversy regarding the effects implementation of specific reforms would have on U.S. citizens. Medical malpractice reform, embodied in The Medical Care Access Protection Act, is one such reform. The act reads as follows:

Medical Malpractice Reform – (S. 197 – The Medical Care Access Protection Act)

Medical malpractice abuse in the US health care system is out of control. Junk lawsuits drive up the cost of health care and the system must be reformed. Reform Medical Malpractice law based on Texas "stacked caps" to improve patient access to health care and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system.

Drafters of the reform and its supporters stipulate that this sort of tort reform would improve patient access to healthcare by increasing the number of doctors nationwide and decreasing the burdensome costs of healthcare. Those opposing this act, however, find these claims unsubstantiated and argue that in placing such restrictions on health care liability, the Medical Care Access Protection Act creates numerous problems for U.S. citizens.

Medical malpractice reform, according to those against this act, does not take into account the detrimental effects this reform would have on citizens injured by medical malpractice. Surely, they argue, we cannot sacrifice the health and lives of victims of medical malpractice in order to bolster our economic standings. There must be other ways to emerge from this recession and create more jobs without overlooking the rights and privileges of the injured and those family members or friends also affected by acts of medical malpractice. It is inconclusive whether or not the Medical Care Access Protection Act will create more jobs if passed, but opponents seem convinced that this act will sacrifice rights Americans are awarded in the 7^th and 10^th Amendments, rights that can not and should not be undermined.

In June 2011, the FDA issued a warning for Simvastatin (brand name Zocor) because of its link to muscle damage or rhabdomyolysis. Rhabdomyolysis, the most serious form of muscle damage or myopathy, damages the kidneys and could be fatal. The FDA recommended completely eliminating the prescription for 80 milligrams of Zocor, the current highest maximum dosage. The serious complications associated with Zocor are widespread as approximately 2.1 million people across the United States were prescribed a dosage of 80 milligrams of Simvastatin in the year 2010 alone.

The FDA has required Merck, the manufacturer of Zocor to add a warning to the label stipulating that Zocor dosage should be limited when mixed with other drugs. People taking the 80 milligram dosage of Zocor are at an increased risk of myopathy, especially during the first year of treatment. Most often, this increased risk, is due to the interaction of Zocor, or Simvastatin, with other medications.

Zocor is used in combination with diet and exercise to reduce cholesterol in the blood. A lower level of “bad” cholesterol helps reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death. The 80 milligram dosage reduces the level of cholesterol by 6% more than the 40 milligram dosage. However, the high risk of muscle damage is severe enough to outweigh this increased effectiveness in the eyes of the FDA.

People across the United States are filing lawsuits against Merck for complications from taking Zocor. If you or someone you know has suffered from muscle damage, myopathy, or rhabdomyolysis, you may be entitled to compensation for your medical bills or other damages. To discuss your legal options, contact the Zocor litigation attorneys at Arias, Ozzello & Gignac today for a free consultation.

A federal judge has ruled that Taco Bell California violated federal and state disability discrimination laws by failing to remove barriers that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The judge will now rule on what kind of improvements the company needs to make to its 220 stores in California in order to comply with the Act. The judge will also decide how much the company will pay the thousands of customers who are included in the disability rights class action lawsuit.

The disability rights lawsuit had claimed that Taco Bell stores in California failed to provide disabled-friendly features including wheelchair accessible tables, and adequate handicapped parking. The lawsuit also alleged failure to provide wheelchair-accessible restrooms and other accommodations as required by both federal and California laws. Taco Bell argued that it has fixed several of the violations, but the judge found that the company was still not compliant in many areas.

Workplaces, businesses, commercial spaces and all kinds of public properties are required to facilitate access for persons with disabilities under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Persons whose access to commercial and business public spaces may be limited include persons with learning disability, hearing impairment, vision impairment and mobility impairment.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prevents discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of disability. The Act also requires that places of public accommodation and commercial facilities be designed, built and modified to comply with the standards established by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Often, California disability rights lawyers find that employers, business owners and owners of properties fail to comply with laws requiring accessibility to the disabled because they are unaware of these laws, or have been poorly advised.

In August 2010, the FDA recalled over 90,000 DePuy hip implants. The recall included two models, the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System manufactured by Johnson & Johnson and DePuy Orthopedics. The FDA has acknowledged a design flaw in the hip implants, which made them difficult to implant. According to the FDA, the ASR cup in the implants is too shallow compared to other devices currently on the market. Therefore, DePuy and Johnson & Johnson were forced to recall approximately 93,000 hip implants, opening the door for an influx of lawsuits.

This design flaw has led to a series of adverse side effects and complications often prompting the need for a revision surgery soon after the initial implant. For approximately 1 out of every 8 patients with the DePuy hip implant, the severe side effects have resulted in an additional surgery. Metal particles from the hip implants can break off and enter a person’s bloodstream creating pseudotumors and other adverse reactions. Also, the metal cap attached to the femur can come loose resulting in dislocation or fracture. Due to the frequency of these complications, people across the nation are alleging that DePuy Orthopedics and Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately research and test the implant and prematurely put it on the market.

This recall has paved the way for those suffering from adverse side effects to file lawsuits against DePuy Orthopedics and Johnson & Johnson. If you or someone you know has suffered any of these adverse side effects or needed an additional surgery to fix a defect, contact the defective device attorneys at Arias, Ozzello & Gignac today. You may be entitled to compensation for your damages. Contact us for a free consultation.

There is no denying that Facebook and Twitter are the modern versions of the office watercooler, with more office gossip and news being exchanged via 140-character Tweets and Facebook updates than face-to-face. Unfortunately, these changes in the ways we interact with others, including our colleagues, have occurred too quickly for employers to keep pace. The results have been often sticky situations involving employees who vented their anger on Facebook or Twitter and were punished for it.

The number of complaints filed with the National Labor Relations Board has increased to 100 this year, and most of these complaints are related to what employees have posted on social media platforms. Considering the sudden explosion of social media, Los Angeles employment lawyers have not found it surprising that even the National Labor Relations Board seems unsure about the decorum governing employee use of social media.

In one complaint, a BMW salesman went on Facebook to complain that his employer had served stale food at a car launch event, and was promptly fired. However, the National Labor Relations Board found that the man's comments were protected because he was expressing concerns about his job, and these comments had been shared in person with other employees of the firm.

In other cases, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled against employees. An Indiana emergency transportation company employee lost her job after she posteda complaint on the Facebook wall of Senator Dick Lugar that her employer underpaid wages and this compromised the quality of care. The Board declined to take up her case because the employee failed to discuss her complaints with management, and did not discuss her complaint with other employees at her workplace.

Los Angeles employment lawyers believe that it will take many more months, if not years, for all the dust surrounding social media to settle down, and for businesses to set established guidelines governing employee use of social media.

Los Angeles employment lawyers can add a class-action employment complaint to the current litigious climate surrounding solar energy company, Solyndra. A former employee of the company has filed a class-action complaint, alleging that the company did not provide employees notice that it was shutting down operations.

Earlier this month, the company, which had been touted as a shining example of the future of the solar energy industry the United States, announced that it was ceasing operations and filing for bankruptcy. That decision came as a shock to its employees. Last week, the company officially filed for bankruptcy. According to the company, it is $784 million in debt.

When the company filed for bankruptcy, 1,100 people at the company lost their jobs. An engineer at the company, who lost his job when Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, has now filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court in Northern California.

The plaintiff had worked for the company for 4 ½ years as an engineer in the product development group. According to the complaint, the company should have given its employees 60 days notice before giving them their walking papers. It failed to do that. Instead, it let its employees go immediately, with no advance warning. While employees say that they had been aware of the troubles at the company, the decision to file for bankruptcy was immediate and shocking.

The complaint currently involves more than 100 former Solyndra employees. The lawsuit demands that the company pay its former employees 60 days of wages and benefits. His lawsuit also alleges that the company withheld hundreds of hours worth of vacation pay that he had accumulated over the years.

Costco has won a major victory in a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by a group of female employees. A federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled against expansion of the sex bias lawsuit to include hundreds more female employees of the chain.

The original claim involves three women employees who filed a lawsuit against Costco in 2004, accusing the chain of sex bias. According to the lawsuit, Costco promoted women at a slower rate than male employees, and placed restrictions on promotions for female workers. In 2007, the lawsuit was given class-action status. The company appealed.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has now ruled that the case must be returned to District Court. According to the appeals court, the district court that ruled in favor of a class action failed to determine whether common questions of law and fact justified the class action. The appeals court also held that the class action status could not be granted because the District Court failed to consider how Costco's rights would be violated by the demand of the plaintiffs for both monetary and compensation and back pay, as well as an order ordering the warehouse chain to cease discriminatory practices. According to the appeal court’s decision, the plaintiffs had not shown questions of law and fact that were common to the group, and thereby justified a class-action.

California employment discrimination lawyers have been waiting for the results of Costco’s appeal for a while now. The company’s appeal of the district court's ruling had been pending judgment while the court waited for the historic Wal-Mart decision which came earlier this year. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart, denying thousands of female employees the right to join a gender discrimination lawsuit against the retailer.

Four U.S. Open tennis umpires, who allege that the United States Tennis Association has underpaid them for many years, have filed an unpaid wages lawsuit against the organization. According to the lawsuit, the United States Tennis Association underpaid them by classifying them as independent contractors.

The complaint was filed in federal court in Manhattan. The umpires allege that they were paid based upon a schedule that was set by the association. They were frequently made to work more than forty hours per week, but were never paid overtime. The lawsuit alleges that the United States Tennis Association paid umpires between $150 and $200 a day.

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status for hundreds of umpires who have worked for the United States Tennis Association over the years. It claims that hundreds of tennis umpires who officiated at U.S. Open matches, including main draws and qualifying matches over the past six years, have not been paid fair wages. The lawsuit seeks overtime and unpaid wages, as well as attorney fees.

The United States Tennis Association has responded to the lawsuit, saying that it is disappointed that the umpires have decided to exploit the organization. The organization says that the umpires only work for the U.S. Open for a few days in any given year, and are paid according to applicable employment laws.

Los Angeles class action employment lawyers often find that employers use misclassification of workers in order to avoid paying certain wages. For instance, classifying a worker as a subcontractor may make the worker ineligible overtime and other wages, and employers very often use these loopholes to save on payroll expenses.

When the first lawsuits against Bayer, the manufacturer of Yaz/Yasmin, were filed in October 2009, only 32 complaints were included. But this number has increased exponentially over the past two years. The number of lawsuits now being filed against this pharmaceutical giant has reached 2,500 and this number is only predicted to increase in the next few years. Some experts have even predicted that this number could reach 25,000 before Bayer can even reach a decision on the initial lawsuits from 2009.

The high number of lawsuits being filed results from the widespread use of Yaz or Yasmin and the high number of women who have taken either of these drugs in the past. In 2008 alone, these birth control pills accounted for more than 28 percent of the birth control market with about $1 billion in sales for Bayer. Lawsuits allege that Bayer failed to warn women of the severe side effects and falsely advertised its benefits, possibly because of the immense revenue generated from marketing these birth control pills.

Yaz and Yasmin are contraceptives that combine estrogen and progesterone to stop ovulation and ultimately prevent pregnancy. These birth control pills have resulted in a number of serious side effects. Women taking Yaz or Yasmin are at a greater risk for stroke, heart attack, blood clots, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and gallbladder disease among other diseases. Women across the nation are filing suit against Bayer in pursuit of compensation for medical bills and other related damages. If you or someone you know has taken Yaz or Yasmin and experienced similar complications, contact the Yaz/Yasmin litigant attorneys at Arias, Ozzello & Gignac, LLP today for a free consultation.

For more information see Yasmin Attorneys.

Consumer safety group Public Citizen has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to recall vaginal mesh surgical products like the Bard Avaulta, because of the high risks that these pose to patients and the potential for long-term life altering injuries. According to the petition, the use of the surgical mesh products is very often physically and psychologically devastating for women, who may not even be aware that they have other choices besides the mesh.
 
Surgical mesh products like Bard Avaulta are typically used to treat pelvic organ prolapse in women. Pelvic organ prolapse is a condition that develops after childbirth. Organs like the bladder and the uterus shift out of position, and protrude through the body. A surgical mesh product like the Bard Avaulta is implanted to keep the organs in place.

Apart from Bard Avaulta, which is manufactured by C.R. Bard Inc., surgical mesh products are also manufactured by Cook Medical, Ethicon, which is a division of Johnson & Johnson and Covidien PLC.

In October 2008, the Food and Drug Administration warned about specific dangers from the use of the surgical mesh products. The agency has received more than 1,000 complaints of adverse events, and companies like C.R. Bard Inc. have been slapped with product liability lawsuits.
 
Some of the injuries that women have reported include chronic and acute pain, incontinence, and recurrence of the prolapse. Women have also suffered from infections, inflammation, and formation of abscesses. Many of the women have reported pain during sexual intercourse. The use of surgical mesh has also been linked to the shrinkage of tissues. In some patients, the injuries have been so severe that patients have required blood transfusions and even additional surgeries.

Los Angeles Bard Avaulta lawyers find the worst part about these injuries is that they're so preventable. Experts have since found that many cases of pelvic organ prolapse can be treated without implantation of surgical mesh devices. However in 2003, a study found that every year approximately 200,000 surgeries to implant mesh products are performed in the United States.