Deep vein thrombosis claims against airlines allowed

Airline passengers can sue international airlines for injuries caused by deep vein thrombosis, but only if the circumstances of their injuries match a specific pattern, a California court recently ruled.

An airline, for example, would need to refuse to reseat a passenger, fail to respond to a passenger’s medical emergency, or the plane would need to be delayed before takeoff.

The airlines argued deep-vein thrombosis is not an “accident,” but the court ruled that circumstances can arise during travel that could create an accident.

One passenger was hospitalized and

had to have surgery because of the injuries she suffered when an airline refused to reseat her in a less-cramped seat after she complained of leg pain. Another developed the condition several days after his flight, which had been delayed for a long time prior to take off. Passengers on that flight were instructed to remain seated with their seatbelts on for more than two hours.

Yet another passenger passed out in the aisle from a deep-vein thrombosis-related injury and died. The airline did not treat her for the condition when she landed, despite another passengers’ discovering a blood clot behind her knee.

Pharmacist can be sued for breaching an implied warranty

A pharmacist who improperly mixed a prescription intravenous nutrient solution can be sued for breaching an implied warranty, according to a recent court ruling.

In the case, the pharmacist’s customer had much of her small intestine removed and had to get nourishment from an intravenous water-based solution the pharmacist mixed for her.

After injecting the solution from a bag mixed by the pharmacist’s technician, the customer suffered chills, vomiting and diarrhea. She was hospitalized and so

weakened by her condition that she eventually died.

Experts testified at trial that the intravenous bags were contaminated.

The Florida Court of Appeal said the woman’s estate could pursue an implied warranty claim because the pharmacist was not merely reselling and dispensing a drug received from a drug manufacturer.

Where the pharmacist is actually mixing the drug in question and in that process allegedly contaminates the mixture, a warranty claim exists, the court said.

The fight over class action arbitration bans continues

Consumer rights lawyers are challenging corporate efforts to bar the use of arbitration to handle class actions.

A 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling opened the doors to arbitrating class actions. Arbitration is a proceeding to resolve legal disputes, and is usually less formal and quicker than handling a case in court. Decisions by arbitrators are usually binding.

Since the Supreme Court ruling, banks, credit companies and employers have been adding waivers to arbitration contracts specifically exempting class actions from arbitration. Consumer lawyers have responded by challenging the waivers in state and federal courts.

Historically, consumer rights lawyers have usually opposed clauses in consumer and employment contracts that mandate arbitration to resolve disputes, claiming that consumers don’t always get a fair hearing in arbitration and that they should have the choice of filing a lawsuit or going to arbitration.

But if the choice is between no class actions and class action arbitration, then arbitration is an acceptable alternative to consumers.

Arbitration can work well to resolve

disputes if an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators can devote more consistent attention and more hours to a class action than a court.

Over the past four years, federal and state courts have issued more than 50 rulings on class action arbitration waivers, but the rulings have been inconsistent. Consumer lawyers have successfully challenged class action bans in several states, including Alabama, California, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington, West Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Federal courts in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington have also upheld challenges.

However, state courts in Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and the District of Columbia have upheld class arbitration prohibitions.

Either Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court will likely have to step in to determine the legality of class action arbitration bans.

Fibromyalgia testimony allowed

In a victory for fibromyalgia sufferers, a woman in Florida was able to sue the other drivers in four automobile accidents in which she was involved, claiming the trauma of the accidents caused her to develop the condition.

Fibromyalgia is a syndrome involving widespread pain, decreased pain threshold, and a variety of other symptoms. The medical community debates whether it’s real medical condition.

Her case ended up in front of the Florida Supreme Court because the drivers claimed she could not sue over the condition because it is not generally recognized in the medical community.

The judges made it clear in their decision that the medical community need not agree unanimously on the particulars of a condition for the woman to make the claim.

Smokers can sue over marketing of ‘light’ cigarettes

Smokers can sue a tobacco company in state court for fraud and misrepresentation in the way it marketed “light” cigarettes. The claims are not preempted by federal law on the labeling of tobacco products, according to a recent court ruling in Minnesota.

The court’s ruling broadens the kind of potential claims available to smokers of light cigarettes.

In the case before the Minnesota Court of Appeals, long-time smokers of Camel Lights and Winston Lights filed a class action against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. They alleged the company violated state consumer protection and unfair trade practice laws. The smokers claimed the tobacco company misrepresented the amount of tar and nicotine they would be exposed to by smoking light cigarettes.

R.J. Reynolds defended its actions, arguing that it only had to comply with the federal law requiring it to say on the packaging labels of its cigarettes that smoking may be hazardous to your health.

But the Minnesota Court of Appeals disagreed.

The court said that the claims of fraud and misrepresentation were not directly related to the federal laws on smoking and health. Rather, they were based on a state law prohibiting deceptive behavior towards consumers. As such, the claims could proceed in state court.

The majority of courts around the country that have considered this issue have ruled consistently with the Minnesota ruling, although some courts have decided just the opposite.