In the five year period between August 2005 and 2010, more than 90,000 patients globally had hip surgeries using the ASR XL Acetubular System and ASR Hip Resurfacing System. In late August, 2010, the voluntary recall of those systems was announced by the producer, DePuy Orthopedics, a division of Johnson & Johnson.

The recall came more than two years after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first began to receive complaints related to the products, demonstrating the agency’s significant delay from first receiving information about serious problems with potentially defective medical devices to taking action against responsible parties.

Some industry observers feel the FDA should have been more rigorous in its testing and monitoring of the DePuy hip implants. Critics state that higher than normal failure rates with these hip implants were observed early on by medical facilities across the country and abroad.

Causes, Symptoms and Treatment

The main problem with the defective hip implants is that debris may wear off of the metal-on-metal bearings causing damage and inflammation to adjacent tissue. Symptoms of the attendant damage are hip and leg pain, difficulty walking and swelling around the affected joint.

Problems with the DePuy hip replacements resulted in 12-13 percent of patients needing secondary surgeries to replace the defective devices within five years. These revision surgeries can be painful and costly.

Any individual who has undergone hip surgery with one of the recalled devices should first contact their physician to have their hip evaluated. Affected individuals should also contact an attorney with specific expertise in DePuy hip implant cases. A knowledgeable lawyer can evaluate potential claims and help impacted patients receive compensation for their injuries and suffering.

Following its investigation into a truck accident that tragically left 11 dead, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is recommending that all cell phone use by truckers, while driving, be banned.

The fatal accident occurred while a truck driver, in the process of making a phone call, drove through a wire barrier and across the median separating Interstate traffic lanes. Proceeding into oncoming traffic, the semi ran straight into a van carrying 12 people on their way to a wedding.

When the metal was untangled, the truck accident resulted in the deaths of 11 people, including the truck driver.

After thoroughly investigating the accident, the NTSB recommended that all cell phone use, including talking with hands-free technology, by truck drivers be banned while driving. The NTSB, which does not have the authority to implement the ban itself, is offering its recommendation to other federal agencies and the legislatures of the 50 states.

Truck Accident Statistics

Accident statistics released by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in April 2011 show that in 2009 (the last year for which statistics are available) there were approximately 286,000 accidents involving semis and other large trucks. While this number indicates a decline of over 100,000 accidents involving semis from 2007, in 2009 there were still nearly 3,000 fatal accidents and approximately 51,000 accidents that resulted in injuries.

Talking on a cell phone while driving is a dangerous activity for any driver to engage in, but this particular distraction is especially dangerous when done by drivers behind the wheel of very large trucks. If you or a loved one has been involved in an accident with a distracted truck driver, speak with an experienced personal injury attorney about seeking compensation for pain and suffering, medical bills, and vehicle repairs.

Medical mistakes are unfortunately not uncommon. What is uncommon, however, is a doctor who has made a medical mistake facing any type of substantial repercussions for injuring a patient.

According to an investigation conducted by The Kansas City Star, several doctors in Missouri and Kansas never face any disciplinary actions by state medical boards, despite being the subjects of Missouri or Kansas malpractice lawsuits.

After reviewing the National Practitioner Data Bank, which contains information on malpractice cases against doctors, reporters found that 21 doctors in Kansas and Missouri have made over $65 million in payments to patients since 1990. These lawsuits were the result of deaths caused by doctors, as well as mistakes such as operating on the wrong part of the body, leaving instruments inside of a patient during surgery or making the wrong diagnosis.

Despite these problems, The Kansas City Star found that very few of these doctors were suspended by a medical board or had their hospital privileges taken away.

This trend is not unique to Missouri and Kansas. According to a report released by Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, it was revealed that 32 states fail to reprimand doctors who have been sued for malpractice – despite the harm that these medical professionals have caused their patients.

“One of two things is happening, and either is alarming,” Dr. Sidney Wolfe, the director of the organization’s Health Research Group told the Orlando Sentinel. “Either state medical boards are receiving this disturbing information from hospitals but not acting upon it or, much less likely, they are not receiving the information at all. Something is broken and needs to be fixed.”

Get Help if You’ve Been Injured

If you have been injured by a doctor, contact a medical malpractice attorney. By hiring an experienced lawyer, you may be able to collect damages for your injuries, as well as be compensated for your pain and suffering.

A teenage boy drove the wrong way on Route 24 on Halloween night in 2009, striking a car carrying a teenage girl who was killed in the crash.

The 19-year-old driver involved in the motor vehicle accident plead guilty to first-degree manslaughter charges and assault. He was sentenced to two six-years prison terms on assault convictions running concurrently, and a suspended 12-year sentence on the manslaughter charge.

A Kansas City, Missouri woman who held a party in her home admitted serving minors, including the teen driver, alcohol. She also admitted to knowingly letting him drive drunk. The 46-year-old woman has been charged by prosecutors with involuntary manslaughter in the case.

“We’re all responsible for what happens in our own homes, providing alcohol to minors, setting off a chain of events that very well could cost us the death of an innocent person,” said Jackson County prosecutor Jean Roberts Baker in the Kansas City Star.

The woman is charged with involuntary manslaughter, which is a felony, as well as two misdemeanors related to supplying and allowing a minor to drink alcohol on her property.

Missouri Dram Shop Law

Dram shop law typically controls if one can recover for damages caused by a bar or restaurant serving intoxicating liquor to a customer. Dram shop law in Missouri is controlled by Missouri statute 537.053.

The state follows English common law, which assumed no “cause and effect” in the act of providing alcohol to an individual who then causes a death. Section one of the statute states:

1. Since the repeal of the Missouri Dram Shop Act in 1934, it has been and continues to be the policy of this state to follow the common law of England, to prohibit dram shop liability and to follow the common law rule that furnishing alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injuries inflicted by intoxicated persons.

There are two exceptions the common law rule: if a licensed provider serves a person less than twenty-one years of age, or knowingly serves a visibly intoxicated person.

2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered personal injury or death against any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that intoxicating liquor was served to a person under the age of twenty-one years or knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person.

However, the statute goes on to again limit the scope of the act, in that if the person killed is the intoxicated person, and they are older than twenty-one years, there is no recovery against the seller of the alcohol.

Social Host Liability

Because Missouri follows English common law, there is no social host liability. In this circumstance, the family of victim could not sue the woman who provided the alcohol for wrongful death, because the woman was not a licensed seller of alcohol.

The Missouri Supreme Court has said, “imposing liability upon social hosts would have ‘a substantial impact on everyday social and family affairs’ and therefore the parameters of any duty imposed on social hosts should be determined by the legislature.”

They went on to further distinguish the difference between commercial vendors (bars and restaurants), by explaining a social host doesn’t realize any monetary gain by furnishing alcoholic beverages to their guests, and reasoned “they likewise have no incentive to encourage excessive consumption.”

The court also noted, “the typical social host lacks the expertise required to evaluate the quantity of alcohol a guest can safely consume.”

And lastly, “commercial vendors are able to insure themselves against the risks of furnishing alcoholic beverages while such protection is not presently available to social hosts.”

Criminal Liability

However, just because there is limited civil liability, one can still have criminal liability. The Jackson County prosecutors are pursuing a charge of involuntary manslaughter against the woman who provided alcohol to the teen.

The Missouri statute 565.024.3 states, “A person commits the crime of involuntary manslaughter in the second degree if he acts with criminal negligence to cause the death of any person.”

A person is criminally negligent “when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.”

Here the prosecutors will need to show that the woman committed a “gross deviation from the standard of care” by serving a minor alcohol, allowing him to become drunk and then permitting him to drive a motor vehicle.