Woman gets $10.1M from hospital for severe post-surgery infection

A 14-year-old girl West Virginia girl tore a ligament in her knee while playing basketball. But a routine knee operation left her with a severe infection that over a period of four years ate away at the interior of her knee until the metal hardware used to hold the knee together migrated up into her thigh.

She sued the hospital, claiming it failed to notify surgeons and patients of an outbreak of infections at the hospital at the time of her surgery.

The jury awarded her $10.1 million for her pain and suffering. The verdict is noteworthy because it’s one of the first in the country in which a hospital has

been found liable for failing to maintain a clean environment.

The hospital contended it wasn’t liable for infections that developed three or four years after the surgery took place.

The girl introduced evidence that bacteria got stuck inside her knee during the operation, creating an infection that took four years to work its way out of her knee. In order to get rid of the infection, doctors had to drill away dead bone matter and put the woman on antibiotics for months. She was left with significant scarring on her leg and her knee doesn’t have a stabilizing ligament.

Man injured by 'shanked' golf ball can sue

A painter working near a fairway who was struck in the mouth by a golf ball can sue the golfer, according to a recent court decision in Oklahoma.

The golfer was part of group teeing off. She saw the painter next to the house where he was working. She yelled “fore” as her ball hooked toward the painter.

The painter claimed he never heard the warning before getting hit by the ball. One of the members of the golfing group claimed he had teed off before the woman, hit the ball toward the painter, yelled “fore,” but the painter didn’t respond.

A trial court judge ruled the painter couldn’t sue for his injuries.

But the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed that decision, saying

golfers have a duty to warn anyone within a “zone of risk,” which includes individuals within the flight path intended by a golfer, or who are within an area in which a golfer has a propensity to shank shots.

The court said the golfer’s awareness the painter was near the boundary of the golf course was not enough to impose on her a duty to warn him of an errant shot.

However, the fact that she had a propensity to hit shots that went left and occasionally outside the course boundary put the painter in the “zone of risk.”

Accordingly, a louder warning, different warning or warning before the shot might have been necessary, the court said.

Brother is entitled to money damages for loss of companionship

When someone dies because of the fault of someone else, money can be awarded to a surviving parent, child or spouse to compensate for the loss of companionship.

The loss of an adult sibling may also create that right, according to a recent decision by the Vermont Supreme Court.

Relying on similar decisions from courts in Illinois and New Jersey, the Vermont Supreme Court said it saw no reason to differentiate between the deprivation of companionship, guidance, advice, love and affection suffered by brothers and sisters upon the death of one of them, from the same harm suffered by parents and children.

In the case, a man died of a gunshot wound. The shooting was treated as a

homicide, but no charges were ever filed.

The man’s brother sued two people he believed shot the man, as well as the owners of the sporting goods store that sold the weapon used in the killing.

A trial court judge ruled Vermont’s wrongful death law did not entitle the brother to recover for the loss of his dead brother’s companionship.

But the Vermont Supreme Court reversed that decision, and interpreted the wrongful death law to include siblings.

The court said the brother should be permitted to submit evidence of the emotional and psychological relationship he had with his deceased sibling.

Hospital didn’t tell patient of HIV status; can be liable to third party

A New Jersey man was tested for AIDS while he was in a hospital, but was discharged from the hospital before the test results were complete.

The man’s doctor received a report soon thereafter indicating the man was HIV positive, but no one from the hospital contacted the man to let him know.

Several years later, the man was tested again and his personal doctor told him he had AIDS. His ex-girlfriend also tested positive for HIV.

The woman sued the hospital for negligence. The hospital countered that it wasn’t responsible for her condition.

But the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled against the hospital.

The court said the hospital’s failure to tell the man he tested positive for AIDS created a foreseeable risk of harm to the man’s ex-girlfriend, his sexual partner at the time.

The hospital was not only responsible for telling the man of his condition, but also to advise him of the steps he needed to take to avoid transmitting the virus to another person, according to the court.

The court relied on a similar decision by the California Court of Appeal.

Lawsuit claims sunscreen makers exaggerate cancer protection

People dutifully slathering on sunscreen are expecting protection from the harmful rays of the sun. But they may not be getting as much protection as they expect, according to a recent lawsuit filed in California.

The class action filed against the nation’s leading sunscreen makers claims deceptive advertising has duped millions of consumers into believing the products protect them from skin cancer.

Although sunscreens do protect against the UVB rays that cause sunburn and premature aging, the suit claims they do little to protect against the UVA rays that cause melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.

The suit claims the products actually increase consumers’ risk of skin cancer by fostering a false sense of security that leads them to stay in the sun longer.

According to the lawsuit, in 1980 an American’s lifetime risk of getting skin cancer was 1 in 250, compared to 1 in 84 today. During that same time, sunscreen sales in the U.S. have grown

from $18 million to more than $500 million.

The ingredient many sunscreens use to protect from UVA rays – Avobenzone, also known as Parsol – breaks down quickly when exposed to sunlight, according to the lawsuit.

This can create a false sense of security since the sunburn protection lasts many hours longer.

None of the named plaintiffs in the class action has developed skin cancer and no personal injury claims have been filed. Instead, the case is based on false and misleading advertising and labeling. Any money damages would be based on the purchase price of the products in question.