Cleveland Personal Injury Lawyer

Boating Safety in Ohio

Margaret Embry — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:16:32 GMT

According to the Ohio Division of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Watercraft, there were 155 boating accidents in 2007 in Ohio. Out of the 155 accidents, there were 80 injuries and fourteen fatalities. Twelve out of the fourteen victims who died as a result of a boating-related accident were not wearing lifejackets.

Passenger/Skier Behavior, Operator Inexperience, Careless/Reckless Operation, Alcohol Use, and Operator Inattention combined to cause 43% of the reported accidents, and resulted in half of the 14 fatalities.

The ODNR Divion of Watercraft has developed the four S.A.F.E. Boating Principles, which, if followed, will allow boaters to have a safer and more enjoyable boating experience.

Sober boating - drive your boat sober

Alertness - look first and have a proper lookout

Fasten life jacket - buckle up and wear the gear

Education - get trained

Please see the ODNR Division of Watercraft Safety Tips for more boating safety information.

Boating on Lake Erie, specifically, poses unique problems not found in other areas. A few things boaters should be aware of: 1) minimal navigation equipment includes a compass and an up-to-date chart of the lake, as well as a basic understanding of navigation and navigation tools; 2) Lake Erie storms are known for catching boaters by surprise so chack the forecast before boating, monitor the weather on a marine radio, and head for safety as soon as you are aware of bad weather; 3) A seaworthy boat designed for rough waters is necessary considering Lake Erie can produce rolling and sometimes violent waves; and, 4) be able to recognize the commercial fishnets that are in the lake (they are marked with red flags).

For additional safety information specific to Lake Erie, please visit Ohio's Boater Education website, BoatEd.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Margaret Embry

Ohio Spangenberg Attorney Settles ATV Injury Case Pre-Suit

Nick DiCello — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:15:15 GMT

When used for recreation, ATVs can be a lot of fun. Furthermore, they have a wide range of utility for industrial use. As with any vehicle, however, there are dangers associated with ATVS. Understanding those dangers allows us to take the necessary precautions, including safety equipment, training, maintenance, and safe operation, to name a few. When an ATV does not operate as expected or is defective in its design or manufacturing, however, we are less able to protect ourselves from the dangers and risks inherent in operating an ATV.

The attorneys at Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber in Cleveland, Ohio recently settled claims on behalf of a woman who was seriously injured as a result of an ATV accelerating unexpectedly. In October of 2007, Cheryl Gaus was driving one of the family's two ATVs with her son on their rural property. After they stopped to observe some wildlife, Cheryl started the ATV which suddenly and unexpectedly accelerated at full throttle without Cheryl touching the throttel lever. Cheryl was thrown from the ATV as it violently surged forward, after which, the ATV continued riderless for several feet before finally striking a fence and flipping onto its side. Even then, however, it continued to spin its wheels.

Cheryl suffered multiple injuries, the most serious of which were fractured cervical vertabrae. Fortunately, Cheryl was not rendered paralyzed. Her recovery, however, was long and arduous.

Upon being contacted by the Gauses, the attorneys at Spangenberg quickly located and contacted a well-qualified expert in the field to inspect the machine and instructed the Gauses not to tamper with the ATV. An inspection identified a clear failure of the ATV to perform in the manner expected. Specifically, the throttle cable had failed to return to its closed (idle) position when Cheryl turned off the ignition. Therefore, when she re-started the machine, the throttle was engaged and the machine surged forward unexpectedly and was uncontrolable. With the help of the inspector, a report was prepared and submitted to the ATV manufacturer.

Spangenberg's understanding of defective ATV claims was essential to preserving the evidence and acquiring the information necessary to achieve early resolution.

If you or someone you know was injured while riding an ATV that may have been defectively designed or manufactured, or that otherwise failed to operate as expected, contact

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

New Nursing Home Quality Rating - Get Informed

Nick DiCello — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:58:31 GMT

The U.S. government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently instituted a quality rating system for all nursing homes that are eligible to receive federal funds through Medicare or Medicaid. The scoring is based on a 5-star quality rating system, with 5 out of 5 stars being the highest rating. The Five-Star Quality Rating System was created to help consumers, their families, and caregivers compare nursing homes more easily and help identify areas about which you may want to ask questions. The website is easy to use and offers other useful links and information.

Nursing homes are rated based on information obtained from health inspections and include certain results from recent inspections. The ratings also address staffing and other important quality measures such as how well the nursing home helps people keep their ability to dress and eat, or how well the nursing home prevents and treats skin ulcers. In addition to the ratings, consumers can compare a facility's performance with average national and state scores for specific quality measures. Now, anyone contemplating entering a nursing home or placing a loved on in a nursing home has access to the information necessary to make an informed decision.

Unfortunately, nursing home neglect and abuse is endemic. The Government's new rating system, however, provides an invaluable resource to the public. The more informed we become, the better able we will be to reduce neglect or potential abuse. Ultimately, a better informed public will put pressure on the industry to raise its standards.

Before deciding on a nursing home facility check out Medicare/Medicaid's Five-Star Quality Rating System.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

Spangenberg Attorneys Begin Distributing Vioxx® Settlement Payments to Clients

Nick DiCello — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:07:24 GMT

The product liability attorneys at Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, LLP have begun distributing partial payments to several clients who sued drug maker, Merck & Co., Inc., over injuries allegedly caused by the once popular pain medication, Vioxx®.

On September 30, 2004, Merck & Co., Inc. withdrew its blockbuster painkiller, Vioxx®, from the market over concerns about the safety of the prescription drug. Specifically, data and studies surfaced suggesting an increased risk of stroke and heart attack associated with use of the drug. Prior to its recall, Vioxx® was widely prescribed for arthritis and pain, generating billions of dollars in sales each year.

The attorneys at SS&L fielded hundreds of Vioxx®-related inquiries in the months following the recall, and quickly put a team of attorneys, paralegals, nurses, and reviewing experts together to investigate these potential claims. In 2005, SS&L began filing suit against Merck on behalf of people claimed to have been injured as a result of taking Vioxx®.

Soon thousands of suits were pending against Merck across the country, the majority of which were consolidated in the United States Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana sitting in New Orleans. Years of litigation ensued during which Merck aggressively defended the claims asserted against it and a few select cases were tried to the Court in New Orleans.

In the fall of 2007, a global settlement was proffered, pursuant to which individual claims would be evaluated based on defined criteria by an independent Claims Administrator who would assign a value to the claim. The attorneys at SS&L recommended all their clients elect to participate in the settlement program. Because of SS&L’s quick response to the Vioxx® recall and thorough continued investigation, SS&L was able, on behalf of its clients, to submit all the necessary information to the Claims Administrator for prompt review.

Now, SS&L is happy to report that its clients’ claims are routinely being approved by the Claims Administrator and partial payments being issued, the remainder of which will be distributed by the Claims Administrator upon final administration of all claims.

The Vioxx® recall spawned nationwide complex litigation. By quickly responding to the recall and setting up a team of lawyers, support staff and experts dedicated to handling their clients’ Vioxx® inquiries and claims, the pharmaceutical and product liability attorneys at Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber were able to efficiently manage each client’s unique claim and see it through the claims administration process.

If you or someone you know believes you have been injured by a dangerous or defective product or drug, contact the product liability attorneys at Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

Family of Ohio State University Freshman Who Was Crushed to Death by Elevator Sues University

Nick DiCello — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:16:11 GMT

The civil justice attorneys at Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, LLP have filed suit against the Ohio State University over the death of freshman, Andrew K. Polakowski, who was crushed to death by a dormitory elevator on October 20, 2006. While descending with students inside, the elevator unexpectedly stopped with its doors open in between floors. Andrew attempted to exit the elevator and was crushed when it began descending once again. Andrew's parents, Kazimierz and Janina, claim the school was negligent in maintaining, inspecting, repairing, and operating the elevator in Stradley Hall.

The suit, filed in the Ohio Court of Claims, alleges the elevator had a faulty brake, an inadequate counterweight, a disconnected load-weighing device, no overload warning system, and no adequate safety device to keep it from falling if the brake failed or should the doors open.

After Andrew's death, the Ohio Department of Commerce, a state entity which monitors the safety of elevators in Columbus, Ohio, tested the elevator and determined it would not hold the weight (3,1250 lbs.) it was supposed to. Furthermore, the Department of Commerce concluded the main brake of the elevator failed.

Andrew, age 18, was the Polakowskis' only son. The family lives in Erie, Pennsylvania with Andrew's three sisters.

The Complaint initiating the suit can be read at www.cco.state.oh.us by clicking on "civil cases" and then "case information."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

Cleveland Injury Attorneys at Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, LLP Among 'The Best Lawyers in America'

Nick DiCello — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:17:12 GMT

Five lawyers from Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber LLP were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best lawyers in America® 2009. The recognition highlights the medical malpractice and personal injury expertise of the law firm.

Cleveland, Ohio - December 2, 2008 -- Five Cleveland lawyers concentrating their practice on personal injury and medical malpractice have received singular recognition for their work on behalf of aggrieved consumers and corporations. Peter Weinberger, Dennis Lansdowne, Peter J. Brodhead and William Hawal of Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber LLP have been named among 'The Best Lawyers in America' by legal publisher Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, S.C. John D. 'Jack' Liber was also chosen for his unique skill in the field of alternative dispute resolution.

"We are honored to be chosen as leaders in the field of medical malpractice and personal injury litigation," acknowledged the firm's managing partner, Peter H. Weinberger. "We pride ourselves in being the firm other lawyers turn to when the stakes are high, the litigation is complex, the financial constraints are great or the required expertise is vital to the outcome."

Pete Weinberger, Peter Brodhead, Bill Hawal, and Dennis Lansdowne were also selected as "Ohio Super Lawyers" by the publishers of Law & Politics for 2009. Nicholas DiCello was named to the list of "Rising Stars," which recognizes the achievments of attorneys under the age of 40.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

Mentor Ob Tape Vaginal Sling Removed From Market

Nick DiCello — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:39:55 GMT

Vaginal Slings

Vaginal Sling: A hammock-like implant device that was supposed to relieve women from embarrassing urine leaks has instead caused serious medical problems - some painful and irreversible.

Vaginal Sling Leads to Pain... and Scarring

The Mentor ObTape® Vaginal Sling transobturator device went to market in 2003 with promises it would replace weakened or ineffective muscles in the urethra and thereby control bladder incontinence.

However, one in six women who have had this sling implanted have experienced complications such as vaginal extrusion and urinary tract erosion, extreme vaginal pain, vaginal discharge, and infections. In fact, crippling pain has forced some to go back for removal surgery, enduring additional pain and further cost. And despite having the sling removed, many women still suffer from pain and permanent scarring.

Have You Had Problems?

If you have been a victim of the Mentor ObTape® Vaginal Sling, an experienced attorney at the Spangenberg law firm is ready to discuss your right to compensation.

Vaginal Sling Removed from Market

Within three years of introduction, the Mentor ObTape® Vaginal Sling was removed from the market. But during the three years it was available, thousands of women had the device implanted and many have had to endure ongoing medical complications as a result of this dangerous product.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

Cleveland Law Firm Says Zimmer Durom® Cup Hip Replacement Component Lawsuits Continue

Nick DiCello — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:20:10 GMT

After discovering an unexpected number of hip implant failures, Zimmer Inc. voluntarily recalled one of its artificial hip implants, the Zimmer Durom® Cup. Some of the patients who must now undergo expensive and painful revision surgery have filed product liability lawsuits against Zimmer Inc. alleging defects in the acetabular cup. Personal injury attorneys expect the number of lawsuits arising from the Zimmer Durom® Cup Recall to grow as more patients experience failures.

Cleveland, Ohio (PRWeb) January 14, 2009 -- Initially approved for market in March 2006, the company touted the Zimmer implant as superior for active patients since less bone removal was required than with conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA.) In late Fall 2007, however, Zimmer’s foreign counterparts received reports that the product showed a “high amount of wear due to malpositioning of the cup after about one year.” Notwithstanding this warning, the Durom® Cup continued to be marketed and implanted by surgeons in the United States who were unaware of the problems encountered in Europe.

In April 22, 2008, just two years after the implant was released into the U.S. market, a nationally recognized orthopedic surgeon, Larry Dorr, M.D. warned his colleagues within the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons of an unacceptably high failure rate. Specifically, he had found that 14 of the 165 Durom® hip cups implanted had required a revision surgery – a failure rate that far exceeded those of other available implants. Because the implants easily popped free during the revision surgeries, Dr. Dorr’s team concluded that the patients’ hip bone had been unable to incorporate the implant likely because of defects in the cup’s design and surface coating.

In response to Dr. Dorr’s warning, Zimmer informed surgeons that it was internally investigating the complaints. In an apparent attempt to reassure surgeons of the implant’s safety, Zimmer cited to its own clinical trials and international experience dating back to 2003. Within the same letter, however, Zimmer acknowledged that the U.S. version of the implant was not identical to the European version.

Following Dr. Dorr’s warning and Zimmer’s response, the Food and Drug Administration received several ‘adverse event reports’ concerning this possible defective medical device. Under mounting pressure, on July 22, 2008, Zimmer temporarily suspended marketing in the U.S. or voluntarily recalled the device. In what appeared to be an attempt to blame the implanting surgeons’ technique, Zimmer claimed that “revised surgical technical instructions and a surgical training program” were required “to achieve desired clinical results in the U.S.” In an apparent about-face, however, Zimmer later told at least some of the patients requiring revision surgery that it did ‘not fault’ the surgeons and was “taking the responsibility for corrective action.”

Despite Zimmer’s purported commitment to take ‘corrective action,’ several patients have formally filed Zimmer Durom® cup lawsuits alleging defects in the implant. These numbers are expected to climb as more patients experience failures and are advised of their legal rights. Personal injury attorneys and law firms, like Rhonda Baker Debevec, Esq. and Nicholas A. DiCello, Esq. of the Cleveland, Ohio firm Spangenberg Shibley and Liber Law Firm, are investigating potential claims on behalf of the estimated 12,000 patients implanted with the device.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

The Dangers of Coumadin

Halli Brownfield — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:37:41 GMT

Spangenberg partners, Rhonda Baker Debevec and Stuart Scott, recently handled two separate malpractice cases for clients who suffered severe bleeding complications related to a commonly prescribed anti-coagulant or “blood-thinner” called Coumadin. This medication – also sometimes called Warfarin – is prescribed for medical conditions that increase the patient’s risk for forming potentially fatal blood clots like atrial fibrillation (an abnormal heart rhythm) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). By inhibiting the blood’s complex clotting or coagulation mechanism, Coumadin prevents the formation of new clots and the growth or extension of old clots.

To test whether appropriate amounts of Coumadin have been prescribed, the prescribing physician must carefully and consistently monitor the patient’s blood for its anticoagulation or INR (International Normalized Ratio) level. If the level is too low, the patient is once again at risk for blood clot formation. If the level is too high, the patient’s risk for severe internal bleeding, hemorrhagic stroke, and death is increased. While Coumadin is an effective treatment, it can also be extremely dangerous for several reasons. First, the therapeutic range for this medication is quite narrow. In other words, the difference between a safe level of Coumadin and a dangerously high level is quite small. Second, several different factors can magnify the medication’s blood thinning properties including the patient’s liver and kidney function, diet, alcohol consumption, age, and prior medical history. As such to maximize patient safety, prescribing physicians must provide dietary guidance to their patients and properly educate them about this drug and its potentially dangerous side effects. Equally critical, physicians must be on the alert for signs and symptoms of excessive blood thinning and know how to appropriately manage it. If a patient’s blood test reveals an excessively high INR level and/or the patient has active bleeding, this is a medical emergency requiring immediate hospitalization and rapid reversal of the Coumadin’s anticoagulant effect with intravenous medication.

In the case handled by Mr. Scott, the patient’s blood-work revealed an abnormally high level of INR or in layman’s terms that the blood was too thin. Moreover, the patient also had blood in his urine which can be an indication of internal bleeding. Instead of informing his patient that he had a life-threatening overdose of Coumadin requiring immediate hospitalization, the Defendant doctor merely told the patient to stop taking Coumadin over the weekend and come into the office on Monday for a repeat test. Left untreated, the patient suffered a severe hemorrhagic or bleeding stroke on Saturday which left him permanently and functionally disabled. Had his physician appropriately provided immediate treatment, the patient’s stroke probably would have been averted. Unfortunately, this particular physician was unaware that rapid reversal treatment for Coumadin overdose existed until after the patient’s stroke. Through the efforts of Mr. Scott, the case was settled at a confidential mediation.

Similarly, in the case handled by Ms. Debevec, blood tests showed that the patient’s INR was exceedingly high and that the patient’s risk of suffering from spontaneous internal bleeding was likewise exceedingly high. Rather than treating the situation as a life-threatening medical emergency, the treating doctor instructed the patient to discontinue her Coumadin, failed to re-check her blood and did not administer the life-saving medication to counteract the Coumadin’s effects. As a result, she suffered internal bleeding and passed away in her home a few days later. This matter was also resolved in a confidential proceeding.

As both of these cases illustrate, the proper management of patients on Coumadin therapy is critically important to patient safety. While some bleeding complications from Coumadin therapy may be unavoidable, many are preventable with effective and competent management. If you or your loved one has been prescribed this medication, please take the medication exactly as prescribed and consult your medical professional to learn more about how to maximize your safety while taking this beneficial medication. If you or your loved one has suffered a bleeding complication from the improper administration and/or management of Coumadin (Warfarin), please contact us to learn whether you may have potential recourse against the prescribing physician.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Halli Brownfield

Spangenberg Lawyers File Wrongful Shooting Case Against Hancock County Sheriff

Nick DiCello — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:19:14 GMT

On December 10, 2008, the lawyers at SS&L filed suit in federal court in West Virginia against the Sheriff of Hancock County on behalf of Charles Penson, a 37-year old Ohioan who was shot multiple times in the neck and back rendering him permanently quadriplegic.

On April 18, 2007, Hancock County Sheriff Deputies lured Mr. Penson to a private residence in Newell, West Virginia under the false pretenses of meeting Mr. Penson’s auto mechanic. In reality, the Sheriff’s Deputies intended to serve a federal arrest warrant on Mr. Penson.

As he approached the doorway at the rear of the house, Mr. Penson was shot in the neck. Claiming not to know who had shot him, Mr. Penson attempted to run to his vehicle. He was shot multiple times in his back as he attempted to flee. Charles Penson was unarmed.

As a result of multiple gun shot wounds, Mr. Penson is permanently quadriplegic. He has no use of his arms or legs and requires 24-hour care.

Law enforcement may only use deadly force when faced with the threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to themselves or others, or when the suspect has committed a crime which has caused or threatened death or serious physical injury. Mr. Penson claims the shooting which left him permanently and significantly disabled and disfigured was unlawful. Specifically, he claims the Hancock County Sheriff’s Deputies violated his constitutional rights, including his right to be free from unlawful arrest and seizure and the use of excessive force.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello