In this blog we’ve got some unsettling news about two common household products: Skechers shoes and the popular cold-fixer referred to as “Z-Pack.”

A giant settlement was just announced concerning one of the most famous companies in the world: Skechers, the shoe brand/manufacturer.  They’ve been all over the news recently, specifically with their television ads for their “Shape-Ups” shoe line which claims the shoes have a “slimming” effect on those who purchase the shoes.  Skechers poured so much money into the ad campaign that they even hired reality television star Kim Kardashian to promote their shoes in their television advertisements.

Despite its notability, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that the shoe giant will pay $40,000,000 to settle charges over their ads being deceptive.  The U.S. government agency says Skechers has been falsely claiming to have legitimate, clinical studies that to back-up the “slimming” claims in the ads. 

Some of the ads for the shoes featured a chiropractor who said—in the ad—that he le an “independent” clinical study which proved that the shoes really did slim down those who wore them.  His claim that the study was “independent” was entirely false.  The chiropractor in the ad was married to one of Skecher’s marketing executives!  That’s like having a dentist say that she conducted an “independent” study to prove that a certain type of toothpaste works—and then it being discovered that the dentist is married to a marketing executive of the same toothpaste company.  Because of Skecher’s questionable actions, they will shell-out $40,000,000 in the settlement and also provide refunds to customers who were duped into buying the shoes in the first place.

Our next issue concerns Zithromax—more commonly referred to as “Z-Pack,” an popular antibiotic used for treating bronchitis and other common infections.  Last year, in the US alone, Zithromax, which is produced by Pfizer, raked in $464,000,000 in sales.  Its popularity is due to its effectiveness and the fact that it can be taken for fewer days than other leading brands.  A 14-year study conducted by Vanderbilt University, however, has yielded some surprising and concerning results about Z-Pack.  Apparently, use of the antibiotic increases chances for sudden and deadly heart problems.  While the overall risk is low, it is present, the doctors involved in the study confirmed.  It’s good to stay informed about the dangers involved with medications.  While we rely on these medicines to cure uncomfortable sicknesses, its important to be aware of the fact that these remedies can have negative side-effects of their own.

If you have any questions about these issues or any other possible legal issues, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com. 

There have been a number of high-profile personal injury settlements decided recently that have helped set the standard for personal injury cases going forward.  Each of them, in their own way, will help to influence future verdicts and substantiate long-standing precedents.  These precedents are more influential than any court, legislator or lawyer.  When something is ruled on in a certain—consistent—way, the standard is set for every case like it to follow.  When lawyers draw up arguments in court, they will cite other similar cases that have come before and use their outcomes as the appropriate basis for forming the conclusion in the current case.  Because legal precedent is such a powerful part of our legal culture, it is important to keep yourself aware of these recent developments because they may very well add credibility to a potential case of yours.

This past month, Susann Bashir was awarded $5,120,000 in a harassment suit against AT&T.  Bashir contended that following her conversion to Islam in 2005, she faced years of harassment at AT&T which culminated with her boss snatching her head scarf (her “hijab”) and exposing her hair in 2008.  Typically, exposing one’s hair isn’t a malicious action, but according to Islamic religious law, Bashir was forbidden from revealing her natural hair (and thus the head scarf was worn).  She was awarded $120,000 in lost wages and actual damages and an additional $5,000,000 in punitive damages—a form of damages aimed at teaching companies a lesson in an effort to prevent future abuse and negligence.  Bashir endured discrimination every day at work—being called a “towel-head” and constantly being asked by her co-workers if she was “going to blow up the building.”  This verdict proves that harassment and discrimination—especially of a religious nature—is not something that needs to be tolerated and it can cost the guilty party dearly. 

For our next story, we look at Medieval Times—no, not the time period, the restaurant and entertainment sensation.  A New Jersey federal court has approved a a class action settlement brought against Medieval Times, claiming that the company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA) by disclosing personal information on credit and debit card receipts.  The company is accused of printing prohibited information, such as a card’s expiration date, on receipts given to customers.  Many people leave their receipts at the table or toss them in the trash, never expecting anything bad to come of their indifference.  However, if a criminal were to pick a receipt out of a trash or snatch it off of a table, they would have the ending credit card numbers AND the expiration date—both of which are key pieces of information necessary when trying to access an account.  As terms of the settlement in this disturbing case, Medieval Times has agreed to pay $525,000 and provide 25,000 free tickets to class members and others.

Lastly, we end with a story of an elderly man reaching a $65,000 settlement with a sheriff’s department.  The man was tasered when police allege he tried to interfere as medics attempted to provide assistance to his injured wife.  At the time that he was tasered, the elderly man was handcuffed, causing his attorney to allege an extreme measure of force.  The case never went to trial, as the sheriff’s department agreed to settle. 

For questions on these or any other legal matters, please contact us at the Law Officers of Aronberg and Aronberg by calling us at 561-266-9191 or emailing us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.

Talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  In the summer of 2008, a little girl and her family were traveling along the New Jersey Turnpike.  It was nighttime, so the little girl was asleep in the backseat with some of her family members.  The driver of the car, the little girl’s uncle, was an off-duty NYPD officer at the time.  So when the family came upon a motorist in distress, it’s no surprise that the officer pulled the family’s vehicle into the emergency lane and got out of the car to help. 

The officer, helped a woman escape her car that had become wedged underneath a giant 18-wheeler, which was stuck in the highway.  The driver of the 18-wheeler violated company protocol and NJ state law by driving the vehicle without the proper reflective tape and failing to place the reflective, orange, triangle markers behind his truck to warn other motorists of the danger in the road.

The little girl, her mother and her sister were still in the backseat of the car at this point, safely in the emergency lane.  Out of nowhere, another 18-wheeler came barreling down the highway at normal speeds despite the obstruction in the road ahead.  At the last split second, the driver noticed the other 18-wheeler and the car beneath it and swerved to the right to avoid hitting them.  He lost control of his truck and slammed into the back of the family’s vehicle, delivering an unimaginable injury to the little girl, her sister and their mother.

All were rushed to hospitals.  The 8-year-old struggled for life before finally passing on.  The excruciating last four years have been made worse by the lack of remorse from both responsible parties — both companies which were operating the 18-wheelers at the time.  The first was negligent in that they didn’t put out flares or markers to mark the scene and notify other motorists, and the second was negligent in crashing into the car, causing the injuries that killed the little girl.

One of the companies recently settled for $6,000,000—a considerable amount of money, but nothing in comparison to the value of a young life and the promise that adulthood might have meant.  The second company has yet to settle, and a Trial by Jury is scheduled for this Fall. 

Where is the accountability?  Companies take consumer money and then refuse to cough up a cent when someone dies as a result of their negligence.  The refusal to settle means that good deeds do go unnoticed.  Not only do they go unnoticed, but if you happen to get killed in the act, because of a negligent driver, that goes unnoticed too.

We will certainly keep you posted with any developments in this case.  Representing the family of the little girl who was killed for absolutely no reason, other than her family was doing the right thing, we have a new found understanding of how important personal injury law is.  It’s not about squeezing money out of insurance companies—it’s about seeking justice for those who deserve it most.

For questions or comments pertaining to this or any other legal matter, please reach the Law Offices of Aronberg & Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.

Let’s begin with Bayer, the multinational pharmaceutical and chemical corporation based in Germany.  It’s probably most well-known for its aspirin which line the shelves of pharmacies and kitchen cabinets everywhere.  In this case, however, the product in the spotlight was Yasmin, Bayer’s own group of birth-control pills.  On the unluckiest day (especially for Bayer), Friday, April 13^th, the company was forced into agreeing to pay upwards of $110 million in a settlement with the first 500 lawsuits that claimed that Yasmin birth-control pills caused blood clots.  Earlier this year, in February, Bayer said that outside of the U.S., the corporation had settled 170 Yasmin/Yaz cases.  According to Bayer’s annual report, as of February, there were over 11,000 lawsuits pending in the United States all in relation to Yasmin/Yaz causing injury or death.  United States health regulators said that information on the heightened risks of blood clots will be added to the labels on popular birth-control pills including Bayer’s Yaz and Yasmin.

Let’s stray from birth control for a bit and talk about fried chicken.  This past week, fast food corporation Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) was ordered to shell-out $8.3 million to a girl who suffered brain damage and was paralyzed as a result of eating a “Twister wrap.”  The girl was seven when she suffered salmonella encephalopathy, a brain injury that is linked to food poisoning that also left her with a blood infection as well as septic shock (back in October of 2005). Several of the girl’s family members fell ill and claimed that the girl’s injuries included cognitive, motor and speech impairment as well as quadriplegia—and were caused by contamination in the chicken wrap.

In other fast-food news, we have news on a class action lawsuit against the ever-increasingly popular Five Guys Burgers and Fries.  A preliminary settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud lawsuit against the restaurant chain for the sale of gift cards which did not adhere to New Jersey’s Gift Card Act.  The lawsuits have accurately claimed that the cards contained dormancy fee provisions and/or expiration provisions that violated state laws.  Anyone who’s ever received a gift card as a gift knows that it’s no “gift” to be charged fees for using a gift card or to be forced to use the card within a certain amount of time at the risk of losing the card’s value.  Five Guys is paying for their abuse of customers which clearly violated a state law designed to protect consumers.

As more and more settlements come to light, justice becomes more prevalent.  The days of corporate greed without accountability are over and a new era of legal justice has been ushered in.  Eighty years ago, people would work 70 hours a week and if they got sick doing so, it was their fault for sticking around.  Nowadays, there are laws that protect people and there are people who defend them. 

To speak with some of those people, contact one of the attorneys at Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.

Aronberg & Aronberg teamed up with attorney Todd A. Newman out of Philadelphia, PA to work on the case.  The crash occurred in New Jersey and most of the litigation occurred in the New Jersey/Philadelphia area.

The case involved 2 transportation company defendants and one of the 2 defendants decided to settle the case rather than have a jury decide its fate. The remaining defendant and case is currently set for Jury Trial in the Summer 2012. 

The family was traveling on the turnpike when they encountered an accident – a disabled vehicle in the middle of the road that was trapped underneath a disabled truck who failed to have any flares or other warning devices to warn oncoming traffic. The disabled truck driver did nothing to protect and/or warn the oncoming cars that there had been an accident – a clear violation of the company’s risk management policies.

While the family’s car was safely parked on the side of the road, a second truck traveling at a high rate of speed came upon the disabled vehicles in the middle of the road, tried to avoid them and crashed into the family’s car. Since the filing of the lawsuit, it has been determined in discovery that the first disabled truck failed to have proper warning/reflective tape on the rear of the truck.

We look forward to the trial of the remaining part of the case this summer and are confident that the jury will do the right thing in awarding compensation for this terrible tragedy.

Let’s start with the “fake” wine.  It is “Pinot Noir” to be exact.  A settlement has been reached in New York, NY, in a class action lawsuit against a wine manufacturer for improperly labeling wine that they were selling as being Pinot Noir.  The lawsuit claimed—and the judge agreed—that the wine was not technically Pinot Noir because it lacked a certain amount of a certain varietal that was necessary for the wine to be characterized as that specific type of wine.  If you feel that you have been duped into buying faux-Pinot Noir, please visit www.frenchpinotnoirsettlement.com for details on how to obtain the reimbursement that you’re owed as a result of the settlement.  You are still entitled to some degree of reimbursement even if you have misplaced your proof of purchase.

Next, we go to a legal settlement involving bad faith on behalf of an insurance company.  A woman in Virginia Beach, Virginia was involved in an auto accident and incurred $24,000 in medical bills as a result.  Her insurance policy covered her for $10,000, and she made a claim for those funds multiple times, each time being rejected by her insurer.  Finally, she filed a bad faith lawsuit against the insurance company, also seeking punitive damages that are recognized under the Virginia bad faith clause.  A judge ruled in her favor, awarding her 100% of her outstanding medical bills, $1,500 for attorney’s fees (for the lawsuit) and $4,000 in in punitive damages.  The Virginia Beach woman suffered twice: first, she was injured in an auto accident and next her insurance company denied her the coverage she was owed.  In the end, justice prevailed, and she was awarded what she deserved. 

Let’s now take a look at the defective automobiles.  Chrysler has issued a recall on 209,724 Jeep Liberty SUVs manufactured between July 2003 and July 2005.  Typically, a car that’s seven to nine years old isn’t an issue—but in this case, it certainly is.  The SUVs have corrosion defects which could lead to a dangerous loss of control of the vehicle.  In several instances, corrosion of lower suspension arms of the vehicle led to fracture and complete separation.  The recall involves consumers in states on the west coast and the mid-west.  According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), Chrysler will contact the affected consumers and replace their vehicles free of charge.

For questions about fake wine, insurance companies, defective cars and anything in between, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or daronberg@aronberglaw.com.

As we’ve told you before, nine former law school students filed a lawsuit against New York Law School, claiming that they were duped into attending the school (and thus paying tuition to the school) on the grounds of false information regarding job placement.  The suit demanded $225 million dollars in compensation from the school.  This past week, however, the judge tossed out the suit.  The judge claimed, in his ruling, that the information provided to the prospective students was not misleading, and that if the student’s didn’t perform adequate research before matriculating, they have only themselves to blame. 

The vindicated defendant, New York Law School, commented on the ruling, praising it as “clear, thoughtful and comprehensive.”  Had the judge decided to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, he would have made a major mark on relevant legal issues, given that this suit was the first of fourteen to be filed in the country on the grounds of law schools “misleading” students about job placement.

For our next story, we’re staying in New York.  A $35.5 million settlement has been reached in an antitrust class action lawsuit filed against Babies “R” Us and several of its manufacturers.  The lawsuit contended that Babies “R” Us schemed with their manufacturers to squash competition by forcing all stores selling their products to sell the products above a certain price, thus inflating prices and improving sales in an unfair manner.  For such an innocent brand, the conspirator efforts of those behind this are truly troubling.

Now we go to Hawaii, where the state government has agreed to pay $15.4 million for the death of a major law firm partner and her cousin.  The two died while hiking in Hawaii, where they came across the unmarked edge of a trail and fell 300 feet to their death.  It had already been determined that the state was indeed liable for their deaths on the grounds of negligence, but it wasn’t until now that the state and the plaintiffs agreed on a settlement.

We end in Philadelphia, PA, one of the most historic cities for a multitude of reasons.  Recently, a construction worker there was awarded $2.9 million for injuries he sustained while working at a job site on Stenton Avenue.  The plaintiff fell through a semi-completed rubber roof and into a drain below.  The judge found the construction company 98% liable for the injury on the grounds of their negligence.

For information about any of these settlements or any case which you may need assistance with, please contact the attorneys at the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg by calling 561-266-9191 or emailing us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.

All of those are examples of negligence directly related to the tort being committed—that is, all of the examples encompass instances during which the tortfeasor, the wrongdoer, acted in a negligent manner.  But what about other people surrounding the incidents acting in a negligent manner?  Well, the world of civil law may have an entirely new perspective following a crucial, landmark case, and a powerful verdict delivered by a jury this past week. 

Take yourself back to April 16^th, 2007.  The day marked by symbols of Virginia Tech and sympathetic declarations such as “We Are All Hokies.”  On that tragic day, a shooter on the Virginia Tech campus shot and killed 33 individuals, making it one of the deadliest mass shootings in the modern history of this country.  In the years that have passed, the parents of two students killed in the rampage filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the school, claiming that school officials acted in a negligent manner in waiting to alert students of the presence of a shooter on campus.  The plaintiffs and their attorneys contended that had the university acted in an expedient manner when alerting students, lives could have been saved. 

According to the details of the lawsuit, school officials broadcasted an email message containing the warning “gunman is loose on campus” to nearly 37,000 students, staff, and faculty members at 9:50 A.M. on the morning of the shooting.  The timing was too late, according to the claimants, given that the email wasn’t sent out until nearly ten minutes after the gunman had killed his first victim.  The delay made it more difficult for students to escape death given their chances at an impromptu, rushed exit.

Following the shooting, a state panel which was assigned to investigate the incident at Virginia Tech in great length determined that the school committed an error in not alerting students more quickly to the massacre that was taking place on their campus.  As a result of the panel’s findings, Virginia Tech was issued a $55,000 fine from the United States Department of Transportation. 

In 2008, Virginia Tech settled with 24 families for $11,000,000, though the two families in this lawsuit opted out of their share.  As a result, and as a result of the Jury’s 3.5 hour deliberations, $4 million as awarded to each of the families of the two dead students in this specific lawsuit.  This verdict may be cut down quite considerably, given that Virginia caps damages at $100,000,  leaving $3,900,000 vulnerable to depletion. 

Should the state only shell out $100,000 to the victims’ families?  What kind of message does that send?  That the lost life was only worth $100,000?  Safety must be made a crucial issue.  Apparently not enough is being done to prevent school shootings, given that another deadly shooting occurred in late 2011 at the same university. 

For more information about the legal issues surrounding school shooting issues, or any other matter, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.

First things first: obviously, as time goes on and new technologies are developed, death rates from a great many causes begin to dip. However, shockingly (or maybe not shockingly) there has been no decrease in the number of deaths each year caused by speeding-related car accidents. Why are people speeding? Who knows; maybe it’s the rush of everything that seems to characterize this portion of human history. Maybe it’s that the cars go faster nowadays than they did before. Either way, according to a recent study by the Governors Highway Safety Association, about 33% of all car accident fatalities are linked to speeding. In 2010 alone, more than 10,500 people were killed because of speeding.

Now, this isn’t to say that speeding is not linked to anything else, like, for example, drinking. When you drink, you’re more likely to take risks and do things you wouldn’t otherwise do. If you’re drinking at a party, maybe you’d be more inclined to tell somebody how you really feel. If you’re driving while drunk, you’re going to be much more likely to drive erratically. Telling someone how you feel about them won’t end in a personal injury suit, but drinking and driving CAN! It’s highly negligent to get behind the wheel while you’re intoxicated; in doing so, not only do you risk your own safety, but you risk the well-being of everybody around you. Drunk driving leads to unsafe driving and that, in turn, leads to a great many deaths each year. We have a responsibility to act in a cautious manner when we are on the road with other drivers.

The second part of this blog is devoted to looking at a lawsuit filed against Takeda Pharmaceuticals. We’re all familiar with the fact that drug manufacturers have a duty to disclose possible side effects of the drugs they are producing. Well, according to this lawsuit, Takeda did not properly disclose the fact that hundreds of users of their drug Actos suffered congestive heart failure because of the drug. The unreported cases occurred between 2007 and 2010. In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration, which has jurisdiction over this issue, ordered that Takeda must include a warning on Actos’ packaging, warning patients about the risk of congestive heart failure.

While Takeda met that responsibility in part, they circumvented the true purpose of the demand. Takeda chose not to include any information about any of the victims of the drug who did not die or require hospitalization. Concealing that information, according to the lawsuit, was an effort by Takeda to avoid losing sales to the competitor drug, Avandia, manufactured by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. While this suit is not a personal injury lawsuit—because it’s what’s known as a “whistleblower” suit—it may very well be received as a product liability suit.

When you’re on the road, please drive carefully. We see the results of far too many accidents. And if you’re required to take medication for one reason or another, please do extensive research to make sure that the drug you’re taking is actually going to help you instead of hurt you.

If you have any questions about any of the information found here, or about any other legal matter, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.

I want to spend some time going over some of the more general aspects of personal injury cases; these pieces of vital information pretty much apply across the board. That is, they’re not specific to one incident or another, but rather to almost any personal injury case you might have the misfortune of being involved in. So, what types of personal injury cases could you be involved in? There are many more opportunities for personal injury than a mere car accident. People do get into auto accidents, but they also slip and fall (and hurt themselves), receive poor treatment form a medical provider, injure themselves while using a defectively manufactured product, sustain reputational injury due to widespread defamation, etc. Unfortunately, the list goes on and on.

First of all, when considering a personal injury case, you must be of the belief that someone else is responsible for your injury. That is, someone was responsible for the boat accident you got in, someone was responsible for the maple syrup being left on the floor at the grocery store, or somebody was responsible for the poor medical treatment you received, etc. Next, once you and your attorney have identified a person or party responsible, you must be able to prove that the person was responsible for your injury. Typically, this includes proving that the person acted in a negligent manner. For example, the boat captain made a bad decision to go out on a rough day, or someone was texting while driving and hit you because they weren’t paying attention or they didn’t check the floor of the grocery store to make sure that the aisles were free of liquid on the floors.

If more than one party is responsible, your attorney may decide to file a claim against all responsible parties. This varies case-by-case and it’s best to let your attorney determine what the best course of action is in such an instance. Now, when you’re determining damages (the financial compensation you and your attorney are requesting) there are multiple considerations that must be made. Damages include, but are not necessarily limited to, the cost of your medical bills that you have incurred and what you will incur in the future, the amount of money you lost by not being able to work, in the past and future, the value of your property loss and/or damage, as well as money for your past and future pain and suffering.

Speaking about compensation, if a personal injury lawyer ever asks you for money up front, run! Personal injury lawyers make their money on a contingency fee basis—that means that they take a small portion of the money they recover for YOU. Thus, they are only paid once YOU receive your settlement. If you do not get any money, your personal injury lawyer DOES NOT GET PAID!!!

When you get involved in a personal injury case, prepare yourself for what can potentially be a long battle. These cases are not easy. Sometimes they take months to resolve—even years! We, here at Aronberg & Aronberg, try to get cases resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible. But sometimes, justice is not always easy to secure, and that’s why it’s important that you hire an experienced personal injury attorney like the ones at our firm.

If you have any questions about personal injury law, or if you believe you might have a case, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg for a free consultation. We can be reached at 561-266-9191 or at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.