TX Supreme Court Rejects Crash Victim's Case

The Supreme Court of Texas refused for a second time to hear the case of tragic accident victim Michelle Gaines on Friday.

Without any explanation, the high court denied her attorneys' request for reconsideration.

Gaines, of Palestine, suffered a traumatic brain injury at age 19 on June 11, 2006, when an 18-wheeler hauling an oil rig careened through a red light and crashed into her 2000 Buick.

Four years later, a jury awarded Gaines more than $8 million in damages. The truck’s driver, its owner and another businessman involved with the oil rig were held liable. Court documents show the truck lacked working brakes and a jury agreed with Gaines' attorneys that there was an attempt to cover up what happened.

The state’s 12th Court of Appeals overturned the verdict last year, ruling there was not enough proof that the businessman, Joseph Pritchett — the only defendant with the money to pay the damages — was liable in the accident.

Pritchett's lawyers have said that he had no role in the accident and that he vehemently disagrees with implications of a cover-up.

Gaines' attorneys appealed, and the case made its way to the Texas Supreme Court for the first time this summer. When the justices refused to hear it, Gaines' attorneys filed the motion to reconsider.

Gaines spent weeks after the wreck recovering from a broken pelvis and punctured lung, but she continues to suffer from the effects of the head injury. Her father, Mike Gaines, has said his daughter has the maturity of a 12-year-old.

Scott Clearman, Gaines' attorney, said the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case likely means the end of the legal battle and that she will eventually be confined to a state facility when her father is no longer able to care for her.

______________________
Source: The Texas Tribune (Rocha, 10/26)

Texas Animal Welfare Organization Sues State over Dog and Cat Breeder Act

SAN ANTONIO- Touted as a "Puppy Mill" Bill, HB 1451 was not written to regulate Texas dog and cat breeders; it was written to eliminate them! Humane Society of the U.S. and their Texas cohort Texas Humane Legislation Network wrote the bill which was rammed through the Legislature despite strong opposition. HB 1451 is a national "animal rights" legislative agenda to end all breeding of animals – whether bred for food, clothing, or pet ownership.

Purebred dogs and cats face extinction with a loss of gene pools for all those breeds that serve mankind so well. "RPOA" stands for Responsible Pet Owners Alliance. "This new law tramples on important constitutional rights," claims Executive Director Mary Beth Duerler, "and will have a negative impact on the state's economy; affecting veterinarians, pet supply stores, groomers, pet sitters, and sales taxes."

The words "commercial" or "puppy mill" are nowhere in HB 1451. A breeder is defined as having "possession of more than 10 intact dogs or cats AND selling or even offering to sell more than 20 dogs/cats." "Intact" does not translate to "bred." Two litters of Labrador Retrievers could easily exceed the 20 limit sold. The exemptions for "certain dogs" are vague and indefinable. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) inspectors will make those decisions on a case by case basis. It will be per dog, per year; and not a general exemption for any breed of dog.

The 26 pages of "Rules" evolved during numerous contentious meetings held by TDLR this year and compound the issue.

HB 1451 mandates USDA regulations at a minimum which cannot be met in a home environment due to stringent requirements for drainage, cleaning and sterilization methods. The new law has resulted in an exodus of breeders moving out of state, reducing number of intact females, or quit breeding altogether which is the goal of the Animal Rights Movement.

Can the new law be revenue neutral as required by statute with only 103 breeders licensed to date? The Legislature's financial analysis predicted 1,000 breeders would be licensed. Senator John Carona, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Business and Commerce, has written TDLR expressing concern that the program is falling far short of sufficient funding due to few licenses being issued. He warned, "… it must be supported by licensing income in a manner that does not punish registrants or raise the appearance of potential bias. Reliance on donations for the program's survival to any degree is not acceptable." The senator referred to the unique statutory provision that allows HSUS and other national "animal rights" organizations to make donations to an enforcement fund. This law is fundamentally flawed and must be repealed in its entirety. It can't be "fixed."

RPOA Texas Outreach, Inc. formed to promote and preserve the human/animal bond and our historic working relationship with animals.

_______________________________
Source: PR Newswire (Responsible Pet Owners Alliance, 10/15)

Gov't to warn motorists about counterfeit air bags

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is preparing to warn car owners whose air bags have been replaced in the past three years that dangerous counterfeit bags may have been installed, according to auto industry officials who have been briefed by the government.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration alerted the industry in a series of telephone briefings Tuesday that tens of thousands of car owners may be driving vehicles with counterfeit air bags, industry officials said. NHTSA testing has shown some of the counterfeit bags don't inflate or fail to inflate properly, they said. In at least one case, a counterfeit bag fired shards of plastic and other projectiles on impact, they said.

The officials requested that their names not be used because NHTSA had asked them not to speak publicly about the problem until after an announcement scheduled for Wednesday.

NHTSA will ask car owners to check a government website, Safercar.gov, or call their manufacturer or local dealership to learn if their vehicle model is among those for which counterfeit air bags have been made, officials said.

No deaths or injuries have been tied to the counterfeit bags, but it's unclear whether police accident investigators would be able to identify a counterfeit bag from a genuine one, officials said.

The agency has compiled a draft list of dozens of vehicle makes and models for which counterfeit air bags may be available. NHTSA cautions at the top of the draft that the agency "expects this list to evolve over time."

If the car is on the list and has had its air bags replaced during the past three years by a repair shop other than a new car dealership owners will be asked to bring the vehicle into a dealership to determine whether the replaced air bags are counterfeit. Fees for checking out air bags could run $100 or more, industry officials said. Some types of cars have as many as eight air bags.

The counterfeit bags typically have been made to look like air bags made by automakers and usually include a manufacturer's logo. Government investigators believe many of the bags come from China, an industry official said.

The bags are marketed to auto body shops as the real deal, officials said. Auto dealerships that operate their own body shops are usually required by their franchise agreements to buy their parts, including air bags, directly from automakers and therefore are unlikely to have installed counterfeit bags, officials said.

But only 37 percent of auto dealers have their own body shops, according to information on the National Association of Automobile Dealers' website. Many consumers whose vehicles have been damaged are referred by their insurance companies to auto body shops that aren't affiliated with an automaker.

Consumers who bought replacement air bags online will also be urged to check NHTSA's list.

A wide variety of counterfeit auto parts has long been a well-known problem, industry officials said. But recent incidents have escalated concern by government officials. In August, federal agents confiscated nearly 1,600 counterfeit air bags and arrested a North Carolina auto mechanic, according to a report by the Charlotte Observer. The mechanic was tied by federal officials to another counterfeit air bag case last year in Tennessee, the report said.

Last February, Dai Zhensong, a Chinese citizen, pleaded guilty and was sentenced in federal court in Chattanooga, Tenn., to 37 months in prison for trafficking in counterfeit air bags, according to a statement made at the time by the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Zhensong was a part owner and manager of the international department of Guangzhou Auto Parts, which made a variety of auto parts, many of which were counterfeit, the statement said. In 2010, he traveled from China to Chattanooga to sell additional counterfeit air bags and other auto parts. The counterfeit air bags were manufactured by purchasing genuine auto air bags that were torn down and used to produce molds to manufacture the counterfeit bags. Trademark emblems were purchased through Honda, Toyota, Audi, BMW and other dealerships located in China and affixed to the counterfeit air bags. The air bags were advertised on the Guangzhou Auto Parts website and sold for approximately $50 to $70 each, far below the value of an authentic air bag, the statement said.

_____________________________
source: Associated Press (Lowy, 10/10)

Meningitis due to tainted steroids

The meningitis outbreak that has sickened at least 119 people and killed 11 of them has laid bare a disturbing lack of regulatory oversight of pharmacies that mix drug compounds and ship them around the country. Unless Congress passes legislation to strengthen the hand of the Food and Drug Administration, the public will continue to be at risk from contaminated products.

The outbreak has been linked to a steroid made by the New England Compounding Center in Framingham, Mass., that was shipped to 23 states. The steroid was almost certainly contaminated by a fungus, although final laboratory results are not yet in. Some 13,000 patients may have had the tainted steroid injected near their spines to ease back or neck pain. The center has shut down, surrendered its license and recalled all of its products, not just the steroids, while state and federal investigations try to pin down exactly what went wrong.

How could this happen? As Denise Grady, Andrew Pollack and Sabrina Tavernise explained in The Times, these pharmacies fall into a legal no man’s land between the Food and Drug Administration and 50 state pharmacy boards, most of which have little expertise and limited resources to ensure the safety of these products.

Years ago, compounding pharmacies were small-scale operations that mixed ingredients to meet the special needs of patients who couldn’t take the standard drugs, perhaps because they were allergic to a particular ingredient or couldn’t swallow a pill and needed a liquid form instead. Such pharmacies still exist, often inside a hospital, where they custom-make mixtures in accord with prescriptions written by the patients’ doctors.

Over the past decade or more, however, some pharmacies have morphed into miniature drug companies that compete with big pharmaceutical firms and produce compounds that essentially mirror drugs already on the market. Doctors and hospitals have turned to these pharmacies because their prices are often much lower than those charged by major manufacturers or because the standard drugs are in short supply.

Therein lies an element of risk. Compounded drugs have not gone through the same rigorous tests for safety and effectiveness required of standard drugs and are not made in plants inspected by the F.D.A. to ensure good manufacturing practices. There have been several incidents in recent years in which compounded drugs have caused injury. Some critics complain that the F.D.A. and state regulators should have intervened in this case sooner and more forcefully, which may well be true. But conflicting court decisions have left unclear what powers the F.D.A. has to regulate these pharmacies.

Congress can and should clarify matters with legislation. The legislation ought to grant the F.D.A. any powers it thinks it needs to inspect compounding pharmacies, monitor their nationwide sales and judge the safety or effectiveness of their products. It should also empower the F.D.A. to block pharmacies from making drugs (such as injectable steroids) that require a higher degree of sterility than many of them can meet. The goal is to ensure that there are no further calamities in this lightly regulated market.

_____________________

Source: The New York Times (10/9)

Toyota Yaris ranked worst among injury claims in insurance study

If you drive the Toyota Yaris, be careful.

That's because you're more likely to get injured in the tiny subcompact than in any other vehicle in a crash, according to an insurance industry study released Thursday.

The Highway Loss Data Institute looked at insurance statistics for model years 2009-11 and found personal injury claims were filed 28.5 times for every 1,000 Yaris vehicles the industry insured.

The Suzuki SX4, a small crossover, had the second-highest risk of injury to its occupants, posting 26.6 claims per 1,000 of the vehicles insured.

Other vehicles that scored poorly by the institute's measurement included the Chevrolet Aveo, Mitsubishi Galant, Kia Rio, Nissan's Versa and Sentra, Hyundai Accent and the Dodge Avenger.

Not surprisingly, the institute said its research demonstrated that the vehicles with the highest injury claims tend to be small cars.

"Injury claims data show something that crash test results can't, and that's the role that vehicle size plays," said Kim Hazelbaker, the institute's senior vice president.

That data come as small-car sales have zoomed with rising gas prices. Sales of cars in the same segment as the Yaris rose 32% through the first eight months of this year to more than 260,000, according to Autodata Corp. That's more than double the sales growth rate of all cars this year.

The Yaris has done even better, posting a 60% sales increase over that time period compared with a year earlier.

Toyota defended its vehicle, noting how the Yaris was among the 2012 "top safety picks" by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

"Toyota is committed to achieving the highest standards for safety and is proud of its industry-leading 18 Toyota, Lexus and Scion models," Toyota spokesman Brian Lyons said.

The institute said the injury claims data were an important supplement to the crash tests conducted by federal safety regulators and the insurance industry.

"In most crash tests, the advantage of greater size and weight is masked by using a fixed barrier [in a test]. As a result, crash test results are comparable only among similar vehicles," Hazelbaker said.

But the insurance statistics show which vehicles' occupants are the most likely to be injured when it comes to real crashes, he said.

"We know that in the real world, if all else is equal, a larger, heavier vehicle does a better job protecting occupants than a smaller, lighter one."

Nissan, which had two cars on the list of the worst 10, said it would carefully evaluate the study.

"There are many factors that can influence claim rate and we will study the results to determine if the data can provide us with useful information for future safety developments," Nissan said in a statement.

"Nissan has a long-standing commitment to safety and innovation and continues to explore enhancements to safety technology even beyond conventional safety technologies. We believe that the Nissan Sentra and Versa provide excellent crash protection and safety to its occupants in the real world," the automaker added in its statement.

Among the vehicles with the least number of personal injury claims was the Porsche 911, with the lowest rate of 4.5 claims per 1,000 vehicles.

Other vehicles with a low number of claims included the Chevrolet Corvette and Silverado, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Lexus LX 570, Mercedes-Benz SL-Class convertible, Ford F-150, Land Rover Range Rover and Cadillac Escalade.

The institute also looked at the vehicles that suffered the highest dollar amount of damage in a crash.

The $200,000 Ferrari California fared the worst with an average claim of $82,112. That was five times the second-worst vehicle, the Maserati Granturismo, which suffered an average of $16,150 in damage per claim.

Expensive cars topped the list, but the institute also looked at the results for vehicles that are priced under $30,000. The Mitsubishi Lancer ranked poorly both in claims frequency and in the amount of damage inflicted per incident. The Lancer averaged $6,221 per claim.

Other vehicles that had high claims and losses were the Hyundai Genesis coupe, the Suzuki Kizashi four-wheel-drive sedan and the Subaru Impreza WRX.

"For consumers concerned about insurance premiums, this information is key," Hazelbaker said. "A lot of things go into your premium — your age, place of residence, driving record, sometimes even your credit history. The kind of vehicle you buy is the one factor that a consumer can control in the short term."

________________________
Source: Los Angeles Times (Hirsch, 9/21)