Boston Personal Injury Attorney Blog

January 23, 2013

FDA Lowers Dose of Sleep Aids To Help Prevent Auto Accidents

Ambien and other sleeping pills help people throughout the Boston area to get a good night’s rest. Unfortunately, new research has revealed that the active ingredient in Ambien, Zolpimist, Edluar and certain generic sleeping pills doesn’t completely wear off by morning. As a result, there are lots of drivers on their morning commutes who are still groggy due to sleeping pills.

According to Boston.com, the FDA has recently issued an order requiring drug makers to lower the dose of sleep medication in these popular sleeping pills. Our Boston car accident attorneys want to make sure everyone is aware that these sleeping medications can create an auto accident risk. If you have old pills in your cabinet, you should use proper safety precautions to make sure you are not driving when you are impaired.

The New FDA Requirements for Sleeping Pills
The FDA is targeting all sleep aids that contain the active ingredient zolpidem, which includes Ambien and several other brands. Sleep pills with different active ingredients, such as Sonata and Lunesta, are not required by the FDA to make any changes at this time.

For the affected drugs, the FDA is mandating that doses for women be cut in half since women’s bodies are slower to process the drug. This means that doses for women should be reduced from 10 milligrams to 5 milligrams for standard sleeping pills. For extended dose pills, the doses for women should be reduced from 12.5 milligrams to 6.25 milligrams.

The FDA also recommends that the newer lower dosages also be used for men, although this is not required. In fact, in any situation, the FDA urges doctors to prescribe the lowest possible dose of sleep medications to patients.

The new lower FDA limits are necessary because testing has revealed that the drugs can remain in people’s system at levels that interfere with both coordination and alertness. This, of course, increases the risk of an auto accident occurring because the driver is impaired.

Avoiding Accidents With Sleeping Pills
If you currently have sleeping pills that you are taking, it is important to be aware that these pills have the higher doses of medication. Therefore, the pills may impact your ability to drive, especially in the morning when the active drugs have not yet been processed and removed from your body.

Driving when you are impaired by sleeping pills can be dangerous for you and it can also be dangerous for every other driver and pedestrian who has to share the road with you. The drugs carry a warning that they could potentially cause drowsiness, and this warning must be respected.

If you do cause an auto accident as a result of being impaired by a sleeping pill, this can constitute impaired driving even though the pill is legal. Those who cause auto accidents because they drive while under the influence of sleeping pills can also be sued by injured victims of auto accidents or by surviving family members of people killed in a crash.
Continue reading

January 21, 2013

Falling Furniture & Televisions Puts Kids at Risk

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In December of 2012, CBS News published an article warning parents about a surprising risk that their kids are facing: the risk of falling furniture and televisions. According to the article, a report from the Consumer Product Safety Commission had revealed that a record number of children in the United States had been killed in the past year by a TV tipping over.

Our Boston personal injury attorneys want parents to be aware of the dangers that falling TVs and other furniture can present to kids. We also urge anyone having children in their home as guests to provide proper supervision and ensure that TVs and large furniture are secure in order to avoid potential legal liability for the injury or death of a child.

The Dangers of Falling Furniture and Tipping Televisions
In their December article, CBS summarized some frightening data from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. According to their data on injuries and deaths:

43,000 people are injured every year as a result of television or furniture tipping over.
More than 25,000 of those people injured by a tip-over incident are children.
Between 2000 and 2011, there were 349 deaths as a result of a television, appliance or piece of furniture tipping over. 84 percent of the deaths were children 9 years old or younger.
Televisions were the most deadly, as 62 percent of the 349 tip-over deaths were caused by a television.
41 deaths, a record number, occurred last year due to tip-over incidents.

Based on this data, an average of three kids are injured every single hour by a tip-over incident. In total, 71 kids per day are injured and one child every two weeks is killed by furniture, appliances or TVs tipping over.

Tragically, many experts indicate that the problem may become even worse in the future. The issue is that many older and heavier televisions are being replaced by newer and thinner models, with the old TVs relegated to bedrooms or basements where they may not be secure. A large TV placed in a child’s bedroom, for example, could be cause for disaster.

Accidents Can Happen, But Safety Steps Need to be Taken Many of the children who are injured or killed in tip-over accidents get hurt as a result of playing nearby the TV or furniture; or because they are climbing on the furniture.

It is up to parents or to individuals supervising the children to make sure that this does not occur. Parents should also ensure that they have anchored their television and that heavy furniture and appliances are attached to the wall or floor so kids cannot get hurt.

Anyone inviting children into his or her home should also be aware of the potential for a premises liability lawsuit or a negligent supervision lawsuit if a child is injured as a result of a television or other item in your home tipping over.
Continue reading

January 19, 2013

First Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Against Ethicon Underway

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In 2005, a company called Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, made a medical device available for use. The product, which was a transvaginal mesh, was released without any testing.

This was possible under a special FDA rule called the 510(k) rule, which allows for a fast-tracked release of medical devices that are substantially similar to devices already on the market. The transvaginal mesh they released was called Gynecare Prolift propylene mesh and the prior device that it was based off of was a product called Gynecare.

Unfortunately, it would later turn out that there were significant problems with the Prolift transvaginal mesh product. Further, when Ethicon later applied for approval for a next generation product called Prolift M+, the FDA would subsequently conclude that the original Prolift Product from 2005 had never really been approved. In other words, an untested, dangerous and problematic drug was thrust upon the public in 2005 by Ethicon.

Our Boston transvaginal mesh attorneys have become very familiar with Prolift and with the stories of women who were harmed by this medical product and by other transvaginal mesh products. Now, the first trial against Ethicon has entered the courtroom. This trial is important both because it provides the opportunity for the injured patient to get justice and also because it could set the stage for subsequent legal actions.

The Transvaginal Mesh Case
Prolift, like other transvaginal mesh products, is a surgical mesh that was used to treat women with pelvic organ prolapse and with stress urinary incontinence. Women, especially those who have been through pregnancy, can suffer from pelvic organ prolapse wherein the pelvic organs (such as the bladder) drop and begin to press against or protrude into the vaginal wall.

Transvaginal mesh products are used to essentially keep the organs in place. Unfortunately, the transvaginal mesh products soon began to cause significant complications. Many women experienced pain, disintegration of the mesh products, painful sexual intercourse, contraction of the mesh and other side effects. These complications were not properly identified due to Ethicon’s insufficient and negligent testing of the product. There was also no warning of these or other potential complications for women who underwent surgical procedures with the mesh products.

Unfortunately, women may need multiple surgeries to correct the problems caused by Ethicon’s Prolift and by other transvaginal mesh products — if the problems can even be corrected. Many women who are coping with medical care costs, pain and discomfort are taking legal action against the manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products.

Many of the cases based on the transvaginal mesh products are pending, and many plaintiffs have organized into class actions. Now, however, the first case against Ethicon has gone to trial. The outcome of this trial should shed significant light on the mistakes that were made and can have a major impact on future settlements or lawsuits based on transvaginal mesh.
Continue reading

January 18, 2013

Patients Injured by GranuFlo Move to Establish MDL

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

GranuFlo is an alkaline product produced by a company called Fresenius. The product is administered to dialysis patients to neutralize acids that build up as a result of dialysis treatment. Unfortunately, when GranuFlo is administered, there is a substance in the product that converts to bicarbonates within the body. Too many bicarbonates can cause cardiac problems and many patients who were taking GranuFlo found themselves with a bicarbonate overdose.

Now, Fresenius is being sued by those injured as a result of the use of GranuFlo. There were many people who experienced a similar injury due to the widespread use of GranuFlo across the United States, so there are actually many lawsuits pending against the company. On December 12, 2012, two plaintiffs involved in a lawsuit against GranuFlo moved to have a multi-district litigation established. Our Boston injury attorneys want potential GranuFlo victims to understand what an MDL is and how it impacts the case.

Multi-District Litigation in the GranuFlo Case
Fresenius is one of the largest providers of dialysis and one of the largest suppliers of dialysis products in the United States. They provide dialysis products for approximately 1/3 of the 400,000 dialysis patients in the U.S. In other words, many, many people use their products.

Unfortunately, GranuFlo was a dangerous product that they released. They did not warn doctors that it converted to bicarbonate in larger amounts in the body, and care providers thus did not account for this when administering GranuFlo. Patients with an excess of bicarbonates began to suffer heart attacks as a result. In fact, by November of 2011, more than 900 people had experienced a sudden cardiac event just in the clinics manned by Fresenius. With hundreds of deaths in their own dialysis clinics, Fresenius chose not to warn the public but instead to send out an internal memo only. This put countless more lives at stake.

Although the FDA has since issued a Class I Recall, the fact remains that this recall is too late for many who lost their lives in a cardiac event caused by GranuFlo and Fresenius. Those who lost their lives or who were injured all have the right to sue, and since there are so many of them across the U.S., multiple lawsuits have been filed to take action for the dialysis injuries.

It does not make sense to argue each and every one of these multiple cases separately when there are so many common issues to decide. This is why the motion to establish a multi-district litigation was filed and why the motion is so important. If the MDL is established, then the cases arising from GranuFlo will be consolidated in one court. Currently, the plaintiffs who requested the MDL on December 12 have asked that the MDL be established within Massachusetts.

An MDL and the consolidation of cases that it includes can make it easier and quicker for injured victims to get justice. Certain issues of fact, such as whether Fresenius is legally responsible for the injuries, can be established in one court rather than in hundreds of courts across the U.S.

It is important, however, to realize that an MDL is not necessarily the same as a class action. Class actions involve many plaintiffs who all suffered a similar or the same wrong at someone else’s hands. Multi-district litigation, on the other hand, is appropriate in cases where there is a widespread pattern (such as GranuFlo injuring people) but where the plaintiffs have different injuries or different sets of circumstance. In other words, in a multi-district litigation, not every plaintiff will necessarily get the same thing.

If the MDL is granted in the Fresenius case, however, it can streamline the process of getting justice as long as clients hurt by GranuFlo have attorneys to protect their rights and to stand up for them.
Continue reading

January 17, 2013

OSHA Details on Winter Dangers That Affect Construction Workers

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The job of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is to protect workers from dangers or hazards in the workplace. OSHA establishes many different guidelines, rules and requirements for employers in order to ensure that workers are as protected as possible. Unfortunately, OSHA cannot protect workers against nature. As such, winter creates many workplace hazards for workers’ across a variety of industries.

Our Boston injury attorneys want to ensure that workers’ and employers are aware of the areas where there is added risk in the wintertime. This is especially important for those who work on construction sites. The vast majority of construction, whether for public projects, roads and streets, residential buildings or commercial buildings, tends to take place outdoors. This means that construction workers’ may be impacted more than most by cold weather and winter snow, sleet or ice.

Winter Dangers That Affect Construction Workers
OSHA has outlined a number of potential winter risks faced by workers. While driving a vehicle is one of the key dangers on OSHA’s list, there are also some other potential workplace dangers that OSHA has identified that are likely to hit construction workers’ hard. For example, some of the potential risks that arise for construction workers in winter include:

Driving accidents on dangerous or slippery roads. These accidents could happen when you are driving a construction vehicle, which could pose an especially great risk due to the size and weight of many of the machines used for construction
Exhaustion from strenuous activity such as shoveling snow. You may need to clear a jobsite before you begin construction work, forcing you to pick up a snow shovel. Overexertion from using a snow shovel could put you in danger of a heart attack, muscle strain or other injuries.
Back injuries or heart attacks as a result of snow removal efforts.
Electrocution as a result of power lines that have fallen. Since a great deal of construction work takes place along streets or in well-populated commercial areas, there may be a high concentration of power lines on construction sites that could fall on or near workers.
Roof collapses due to the weight of snow. Since construction sites may be unfinished buildings or older buildings with roofs that aren’t up to code, this is a very real concern for Boston construction workers during winter.
Hypothermia and frostbite. Both of these problems can occur as a result of exposure to extreme cold for too long. Unfortunately, construction workers may be performing a great deal of their work outdoors or in unheated structures that haven’t yet been completed and that provide little protection from cold temperatures. Construction workers, therefore, can suffer from either hypothermia or frostbite as a result of being on cold construction sites.

These are just a few of the many potential winter hazards that construction workers face on the job. If an employee does suffer an injury from these or other winter workplace hazards, the employee may qualify for a workers’ compensation claim or may be able to identify a responsible defendant to sue for the injuries sustained.
Continue reading

January 17, 2013

Recent Decisions in Defective Tire Case Illustrate the Challenges in Proving Tire Defects

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

When a tire defect occurs on a car or motorcycle, a serious or even deadly accident can occur. Recently, accidents have begun occurring as a result of new motorcycle tires suddenly deflating. Two separate cases are currently pending against Goodyear Dunlop Tires, who manufactured the allegedly defective tires that led to injury.

In November of 2012, a federal court ruled on a motion in cases against Goodyear, giving the plaintiffs permission to inspect the manufacturing facility of the defendant. The court also ruled that the defendant would have the opportunity to inspect the tires and rims belonging to the plaintiffs at its plant. The plaintiffs are permitted to be present during the inspection.

The recent court decisions regarding the inspection of the plant and the inspection of the tires illustrate the complications inherent in defective tire cases. Our Boston defective tire attorneys are well-versed in the technical aspects of representing clients in defective tire cases and we urge injured drivers to understand where the challenges lie in these types of legal actions.

Proving Tire Defects Requires Technical Expertise
In the recent tire defect case, the judge who ruled that the Goodyear Dunlop manufacturing plant could be inspected did so because the plaintiffs needed to visit the plant in order to gather evidence that defects in the plant and its operations were the cause of the tire defect. Likewise, Goodyear Dunlop needed the opportunity to inspect the tires of the plaintiff to determine if there really was a defect or problem with the tires.

Answering the questions raised by either the plaintiff or the defendant will require a high level of technical expertise. After all, the average person who visited a tire plant would not be able to tell if there were defects in the plant that led to defects in the tires. Likewise, the average person couldn’t look at a tire and determine if there was a design or manufacturing defect or not. An expert who understands tire manufacturing and tire construction and design would need to be consulted to come up with answers.

When cases hinge on the testimony of an expert as to whether there was a tire defect or not, the case often comes down to a battle of the experts. The defendant might put forth a witness who argues that there were no problems with the tires and that there was no tire defect that caused an accident or any type of harm for the driver. The plaintiff, on the other hand, might have a witness that argued that there was a problem with the tire that created a serious accident risk. Both sides would present these experts and it would be up to the jury to decide who to believe.

Because plaintiffs and defendants usually both have expert witnesses with opposing viewpoints, the jury may make the decision on whether a plaintiff can recover compensation or not based on the jury’s opinion of the qualifications and knowledge of the experts. If you are a plaintiff in a defective tire case, therefore, you need to have the right expert witness representing and speaking up for you.
Continue reading

January 16, 2013

Latest Updates on Careless New England Compounding Facility

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The New England Compounding Center (NECC) has been subject to intense public scrutiny in recent months and faces legal liability as a result of negligent practices that led to an outbreak of meningitis.

The job of NECC was to produce a compound steroid drug, which was sent throughout the United States and administered to the public. Unfortunately, NECC failed to follow sterilization procedures and failed to ensure that their steroids would pass sterility tests before sending the steroids to hundreds of medical facilities nationwide. The steroids were contaminated and when injected into people’s spines to treat pain, they cause an outbreak of meningitis.

The outbreak was a devastating one, with 656 cases so far across 19 states. The outbreak also left 39 people dead as a result of contracting meningitis. NECC had to shut its doors and cease operation because of the dangerous product they released onto the market and they are now being sued by those who were injured or by the families of those who were injured.

The NECC case, however, is not over yet. Our Boston injury attorneys have updates.

NECC Trying to Hold Cleaners Responsible
According to CNN, NECC has stated that it intends to establish a fund to provide compensation to those impacted by the meningitis outbreak. Both injured victims and the family members of people killed by the meningitis will be able to recover compensation from the fund.

However, NECC does not want to bear the financial losses all by themselves. CNN reports that NECC claims the cleaning contractor responsible for cleaning their facility should also be held responsible and should share the blame for the meningitis outbreak. If this is the case, then the cleaning company could also be the subject of lawsuits.

Since NECC has declared bankruptcy, if the cleaning company is to blame, this would be helpful to injured victims of the meningitis outbreak who could file an independent action against the cleaning company rather than dealing with the bankruptcy court in order to take action against NECC.

The cleaning company, however, denies that it has any responsibility for what occurred. The company provides only once-a-month service. Since their job is to clean and NECC was the company responsible for the actual production of the compound steroid, it might be a stretch to assert that the cleaner was really at fault.

New Laws Aim to Prevent Further Outbreaks
As NECC and those injured by the outbreak try to work out who is responsible and what NECC will pay to compensate victims, the outbreak has also prompted some other legal action as well. This legal action comes from the governor of Massachusetts who, according to The Tennessean, has proposed changes to regulations governing compound pharmacies.

The changes would give greater power to the state board responsible for licensing compounding pharmacies. New rules would also change the composition of this board, which is currently dominated by registered pharmacists. Under the new proposed rules, a registered nurse, a pharmacy technician, three people from the public and a physician would instead sit on the board. Finally, compounding centers would not only be subject to more supervision by this board but would also be required to obtain special licenses to handle certain sterile compounds.

These changes, hopefully, could prevent serious public health crises in the future and could help to ensure that compounding centers like NECC don’t do anything to put people in jeopardy.
Continue reading

January 16, 2013

Energy Drinks May be A Deadly Brew

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Energy drinks are advertised as a great boost of energy and many see them that way. They are often consumed by students interested in staying up late to study or have fun, or by adults who have busy and harried lives and who need a little pick-me-up. In some cases, energy drinks are even consumed with alcohol, so the drink can act as a stimulant to keep you awake even as the depressant of alcohol is consumed.

Unfortunately, energy drinks may give you a little more than the pick-me-up you expect. Monster Energy drinks and other caffeine-boosting drinks such as 5-Hour Energy Shots or Rockstar Energy have been linked to both serious illnesses and death. Our Foxboro personal injury attorneys urge everyone to understand that Monster Energy drinks are dangerous and to make smart and fully informed choices about whether taking a Monster drink is right for you.

The Dangers of Monster Energy Drinks
The dangers of Monster Energy drinks and other energy boosters have been discussed a great deal in recent months as reports of death or injury come to light. WebMD explains that:

There have been 40 illnesses and five deaths linked to Monster Energy drinks
There have been 13 illnesses and two lasting disabilities linked to Rockstar Energy
There have been 92 illnesses and 13 deaths linked to 5-Hour Energy Shots

The death and injury reports are called Adverse Event Reports (ARE). The complaints and reports of death or injury are filed with the FDA by injured patients or by family members of those who have been harmed. In the case of the energy drinks, they have triggered an FDA investigation intended to determine if energy drinks are dangerous and need to be recalled or more tightly regulated.

Why Are Monster Energy Drinks Dangerous?
Monster and other energy drinks are dangerous because of the high amounts of caffeine that they contain. When a person consumes too much caffeine, his or her heart rate can speed up. Caffeine toxicity is a common result of excess caffeine and a patient may experience significant medical complications or even death due to consuming too much caffeine.

Energy drinks make it much easier for a person to overdose on caffeine in a devastating or perhaps fatal way. The drinks make it easier because so much caffeine is packed into the little bottles, making it possible to get a lot of caffeine into your system in a very short time.

Unfortunately, the full extent of the caffeine in many of the energy drinks isn’t known since the current rules indicate that manufacturers only have to report caffeine added and not caffeine that is naturally occurring in other products within the drink. Those consuming the energy drink may also not have been properly warned about what the side effects could mean for them.

Unless or until tougher regulations are passed or energy drinks taken from the market, consumers need to be careful in drinking these drinks and need to make safety a top priority over a quick caffeine-induced state.
Continue reading

January 15, 2013

When is a Tire Recall Necessary?

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In February of 2012 KHOU.com reported that two young people had died in a fatal car accident in August when they were driving a Ford F-150 truck. The youths were on their way back to school when the tread came apart on the front right tire of the vehicle.

As a result of the tread coming apart, the pickup truck began to skid sideways and then rolled over, killing its 21-year-old and 18-year-old passengers. In response to the incident, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. recalled 41,000 tires that were used on SUVs, vans and pickup trucks. Although the accident happened in August, it was not until February that Goodyear Tire & Rubber actually recalled the tires.

The tragic accident raises some important questions on when a tire recall should occur. Our Boston injury attorneys believe that car manufacturers can and should take swift action if there is a potential danger associated with their tires. It is always better to err on the side of saving lives and car manufacturers should act promptly to make sure that they institute a recall as soon as they know there is an issue.

Making the Decision to Recall Tires
Following the August 2012 accident, Goodyear took action and instituted their recall because there was a chance that a small number of tires could tear and cause an accident. However, Goodyear did not act immediately and remove the tires from the market in August when the accident happened. Goodyear decided to recall the tires on February 16 and made plans to send notices to their customers about the recall by March 22.

Goodyear also limited the recall to only tires made during a 13-week period between March and June of 2009. Only six sizes were included in the recall. When writing a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about their proposed recall, Goodyear reportedly said that only a small number of tires would experience problems and only under a severe usage conditions.

Goodyear indicated that the reason for the delay in recalling the tires was because the tire company was conducting investigations of what had occurred. The results of this investigation may also have prompted Goodyear’s delay since they indicated to the NHTSA that they had discovered the tire had sustained damage from an external cause. Goodyear, therefore, may have been reluctant to take responsibility and to bear the costs of a recall, although they ultimately decided that the cost of a recall was better than the cost of warranty claims and potential lawsuits.

Unfortunately, while a more than six month delay after an accident seems like a long time to wait before recalling a potentially dangerous tire, Goodyear had actually waited even longer to take action. According to KHOU, Google had first seen an increase in warranty claims and property damage claims relating to the tires in May of 2010. This was 15-months before the fatal crash that led to the death of the two young people.

An attorney for the family of one of the young victims of the accident indicated that the crash might have been prevented if Goodyear had acted in a more timely manner once they started receiving property damage and warranty claims. Without this delay, if Goodyear had responded promptly to potential dangers, lives may have been saved.

Tire Manufacturers Should Take Prompt Action
This accident, and similar incidents where people have been hurt by a failure of a tire manufacturer to announce a danger, all indicate that it is better for companies to err on the side of caution and to warn the public as soon as a potential danger arises.

While companies do need to investigate to make sure that there actually is a link between their defective tires and the damages and accidents that are happening, these investigations should be swift and thorough and car manufacturers should take action as soon as possible in letting the public know of potential problems.
Continue reading

January 14, 2013

Our Infrastructure is Aging & Construction Workers Are at Risk

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In early December, Boston.com wrote of a deadly tunnel collapse outside Tokyo. The collapse resulted in nine deaths and led to calls to spend more money on the aging infrastructure in Japan.

While this accident was a world away, it is a clear and tragic illustration of the devastating consequences of the failure to maintain bridges, tunnels, buildings and other essential infrastructure of cities and towns. Unfortunately, in America, our infrastructure is aging too and our Boston injury attorneys are concerned that individuals could be in danger if a collapse occurs. Construction workers are needed to do repairs on failing infrastructure and aging buildings, but could also be at risk when working on failing structures.

Construction Site Risks
With more bridges, tunnels, roads and buildings in need of repair as America ages, more construction work will become necessary in the coming years. Unfortunately, working with aging buildings and structures comes at great risk for construction workers. Those in the construction industry may be asked to tackle tough jobs at dilapidated structures and could be at risk of:

Crushing injuries due to falling bridges, ceilings, tunnels and other structures.
Fall injuries, including falls to a lower level if aging floors in buildings cave in.
Scaffolding injuries when performing work on bridges or on tall buildings and skyscrapers throughout the United States
Gas explosions due to aging pipelines. According to Pipeline Safety Awareness, pipelines stretch across 2.6 million miles in the United States and more than 50 percent of the pipelines were constructed during the 1950s and the 1960s. Construction workers can be injured both when called upon to repair aging pipelines and when performing other construction work on the aging infrastructure that disturbs a gas or other pipeline.

Of course, injuries can happen on any construction site. However, the potential risks to construction workers are exacerbated when construction workers are doing work on old and failing infrastructure. The added danger comes not just from the fact that the buildings or structures might collapse or fall, but also from the fact that work done in the past (such as electrical work) may have been done to different safety codes and standards than those used today.

Staying Safe on Construction Sites
Those performing work on repairing the aging infrastructure in the United States need to be aware of the added risks of working on old structures, old buildings, old bridges and old tunnels. Employers need to account for any and all potential risks to their employees and those actually performing the work need to be on the lookout for dangerous situations that could put them at risk.

In most cases, if a construction accident occurs, the employer will be held responsible and the worker will be compensated through a workers’ compensation claim. For some construction injuries, however, a third party is responsible (such as a project manager) and the construction worker will be able to file a personal injury cause of action to recover more compensation than could be obtained in a workers’ compensation claim.
Continue reading