San Antonio Injury Lawyer Blog

Mexican long-haul trucking companies were given increased access to Texas highways by the free trade treaty signed in 1993 between the United States and Mexico. The trans-border trucking program was intended to ease trucking shipments between Mexico and the United States. The program was halted because of safety issues with the trucks and drivers from Mexico. In 2007 a small pilot project that was intended to give a small number of Mexican carriers access to Texas highways attempted to show that trucks and drivers from Mexico would not endanger drivers within the United States.

Until Mexico can establish that Mexican authorities maintain safety records on their trucks and drivers these trucks should not be allowed on our roads and highways. The United States Department of Transportation and the Texas Department of Public Safety have vigorous licensing requirements for trucking companies and commercial drivers. The Texas Department of Public Safety suspends commercial drivers licences if a commercial operator commits various traffic offenses - even if in their personal vehicles. In the United States truck drivers are required to maintain logs to show that they are not driving while fatigued. Failure to maintain the proper logs and keep a commercial vehicle properly maintained can result in driving privileges being suspended or the imposition of large fines.

Eighteen Wheeler (18) accidents occur too frequently and cause tremendous personal injury to Texas drivers even without an onslaught of truckers from Mexico.

If an accident is caused in Texas by a trucking company that is based in the United States it will likely have sufficient insurance to compensate an injured person. Furthermore, if the driver of the U.S. based company failed to maintain the proper logs or failed to maintain his vehicle the injured party will be able to use those deficiencies against the driver and the trucking company. However, if the accident is caused by trucking companies based in Mexico it will cause many logistical problems and will likely make any recovery more difficult to obtain and collect.

On March 16, 2009 Mexico threatened to impose tariffs on 90 products from the United States in retaliation for the cancellation of the program that allowed the Mexican Trucks to ship throughout the U.S. Because of the enormous risks imposed by eighteen wheeler accidents the United States should not let Mexican trucks on our roads until it can be established that they safe and that its drivers have training comparable to that of U.S. drivers. Because of the threat of life-altering injuries and death that can be caused by these huge tractor-trailers, we would also suggest that the minimum limit of liability insurance for companies operating commercial trucking ventures in the United States be raised to $5,000,000.00 for injury or death caused by a negligent driver or negligent carrier.

On March 6, 2009 in an article entitled "Political Lobbying Drove FDA Process” the Wall Street Journal chronicled how a medical device manufacturer had its product that is intended to be implanted into patients knees quickley approved because of its lobbying efforts. The medical device had the normal review and investigation short circuited.

Medical devices can get quick approval if the device is similar to a product already on the market. The rational is that the first product went through a vigorous review and had studies backing its efficacy and safety; therefore a second product (a copy cat of sorts) shouldn't have to go through the vigorous studies and review. This fast-track review is called a 510(k) by the FDA, and is intended to be used only when similar products have already been reviewed and approved. This 510(k) fast-track review saves companies money and speeds products to the market where profits can sooner be realized.

The Wall Street Journal Article reported on how ReGen Biologics Inc. was able to have its Menaflex knee device quickly approved through the 510(k) fast track review even though some within the FDA did not believe that it should qualify for the fast track review process and instead should have had to go through a more vigorous vetting process. According to the article, the head of the FDA, when asked about the 510(k) allowance for this particular product, was quoted as saying "There's something wrong with how that decision was made." This provides more evidence that consumers need to be able to pursue claims against manufacturers of faulty medical devices if they are injured. The Government Accountability Office, in January, issued a statement indicating that the FDA is too quick to allow 510(k) approvals. Quite simply, the FDA is incapable of monitoring all of the products they are supposed to oversee.

We have no opinion regarding, and this entry is not a comment on, the safety or efficacy of the ReGen Menaflex device; this entry merely points out that the FDA appears unable to adequately perform its functions and therefore puts American consumers at risk. The only safety net for the American consumer when regulation fails, is the ability to bring a private suit seeking compensation for losses. If manufacturers are allowed to hide behind the laws that give immunity to many FDA approved devices, and obtain approvals perhaps without a full review and proper vetting, our citizens will remain at risk.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for researching and approving new medicines, staying abreast of those medicines on the market, regulating medical devices, and monitoring and ensuring the safety of approximately 80% of our food supply. Most people don’t realize the FDA also regulates many devices that emit radiation such as cell phones, computer monitors, as well as a host of other products. The FDA also regulates cosmetics and many products used in the production of food, including animal feed.

With the globalization of food and drug production it is no surprise to find that the FDA has been unable to do its job as mandated. The FDA's budget has essentially been flat for years even though many managers and administrators in the FDA have called for a doubling of their budget. Recently an article published March 14, 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine pointed out the difficulties faced by the FDA. The article entitled "A To-Do List for the New FDA Commissioner" points out many of the difficulties faced by an increasing workload at the FDA and suggests many changes that need to be addressed.

The primary focus of the FDA is the protection of the United States consumer. It is obvious that the FDA is not capable of monitoring all of the products under its umbrella that are made in the United States and certainly not those entering the U.S from foreign countries such as China. With the FDA stretched beyond its limit and the Federal Budget unable to fully fund the FDA an obvious choice is to remove the private lawsuit protections that medical device makers and drug manufacturers have taken advantage of in the past. Congress originally attempted to essentially grant immunity to drug and device manufacturers in many circumstances, if the FDA had approved a product. Inasmuch as the FDA cannot properly research and evaluate every product, private consumer litigation is the only avenue to seek redress from harmful drugs and devices. Legislation has been introduced in the current session of Congress to accomplish this task. We as a country need to either fully fund the FDA or allow consumer protection lawsuits. Innocent people are being harmed or killed by unsafe food, drugs or medical devices and many of those harmed currently have no relief in the courts.

It was recently reported by the Texas Department of Public Safety that a motorcycle accident north of San Antonio claimed the life of the motorcycle driver. It was also reported that the motorcycle driver was not wearing a helmet. Most safety experts agree that wearing a motorcycle helmet decreases the likelihood of a cycle crash fatality by approximately 35 to 40 percent.

Adult motorcycle riders in Texas are not required to wear helmets. A large percentage of motorcycle riders in Texas prefer to go helmet-less because of the freedom and perceived improvement in field of view. Opponents of mandatory state helmet laws have argued that helmets negatively effect their ability to visually detect vehicles in other lanes and that the helmets also reduce their ability to hear auditory signals such as horns and the sound of nearby traffic. Studies by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tend to dispute the claim that helmets negatively impact safety because of a perceived reduction in vision or hearing; however, a helmet may reduce vision when changing lanes. These factors do not override the safety effect that protecting the rider’s head promotes. Motorcycle operators may need to exercise caution when changing lanes, but that conduct rests on all drivers. Not addressed in the studies of injuries is how many of the accidents were caused by reckless drivers not being on the lookout for motorcycle drivers. Motorcycle drivers in Texas often complain about aggressive automobile drivers and drivers of cars and trucks often cause injury to motorcycle riders and passengers as a result of not keeping close attention to all users of the streets and highways.

It should be noted, however, that various helmet styles and varying manufacturers have differing safety profiles. All motorcycle helmets are required to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218, which is the minimum level of protection. Some helmets provide more protection and no helmet should provide less than the standard. In a motorcycle accident involving serious head trauma to a helmeted operator or passenger it may be necessary to investigate the safety profile of the helmet that was being used.

It is likely that there will be one or more motor vehicle collisions in San Antonio, Texas involving recalled vehicles. What is interesting is whether any of the lawyers or investigators will take the time to determine whether a recall on any of the vehicles may have contributed to the accident and therefore the injuries.

Auto accidents have many potential causes, many of which will never be discovered unless a thorough investigation is completed. One of the areas that can often lead to discovery of useful information is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and particular its listing of defects and safety recalls.

As an example GM announced on February 17, 2009 a recall of over 8000 Pontiac G6 vehicles because the brake lamps may not illuminate when the brake pedal is depressed. This failure is caused by corrosion in the bulb connection. Many individuals may not get the notice that their vehicle has a recall, or they may ignore the vehicle recall because they mistakenly believed that fixing the safety issue will cost them money.

Failed brake lights can cause a car wreck to occur because one party doesn't see brake lights in front of them, and the other driver is unaware that their brake lights did not illuminate due to the defect. In a case that results in serious, life threatening injuries, or death, perhaps the manufacturer of the defective brake light will be the responsible party. Only a thorough investigation of your auto accident can determine all potential responsible parties.

More and more Americans rely on nursing homes to provide care for elderly parents and grandparents. Unfortunately, many nursing homes are understaffed and are not providing the level of care that is required. In addition, there are many cases of outright abuse of elderly residents. The Bush Administration, last fall before leaving office, enacted a rule that designates state nursing home inspectors and all Medicare or Medicaid contractors as federal employees. This simple change of designation can have profound impact on any legal action concerning neglect or abuse that occurs in nursing homes. By designating these investigators as federal employees, these individuals are much more shielded from providing evidence. In order to obtain depositions of these investigators and information contained in the files, litigants will now have to go to much greater lengths, and incur much greater expense, in an effort to attempt to retrieve inspection reports or to obtain depositions in cases.

Essentially, these individuals are prohibited from participating in private lawsuits where a facility that receives federal assistance is involved, unless approval is obtained from the head of the Department of Health and Human Services. Maneuvering these bureaucratic channels can cause significant delays in proceedings while state judicial proceedings and federal agencies grapple over these requests.

It is an injustice and an attack on human dignity when elderly nursing home residents are injured and harmed at the hands of a negligent facility; adding a bureaucratic nightmare to the process of seeking redress only adds to the injustice and indignity.