Google has been experimenting with driverless cars for several years now, releasing the vehicles onto streets in cities as small as Ann Arbor, Michigan and as large as Los Angeles, California. At the recent Detroit Auto Show, Google also spotlighted a minivan with self-driving sensors and vision systems.

Waymo, the autonomous car company Google spun off as its efforts advanced, has partnered with Fiat Chrysler to develop the driverless cars. The company has also focused on developing a package of self-driving equipment that can be installed on already-existing vehicles. Other Detroit automakers, including General Motors and Ford, also claim to be developing their own driverless vehicle technology – and have made promises to manufacture the results in Michigan.

However, the rise of self-driving vehicles raises a number of legal questions. How will such vehicles be regulated to ensure their safety? What features in a self-driving vehicle should be required, and which should be optional? How will auto insurance companies cover self-driving vehicles? Who is responsible if a self-driving vehicle crashes – or if it causes serious injuries?

Federal guidance on the issue includes a Preliminary Statement of Policy from the NHTSA, and an interpretation from NHTSA of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as they might apply to a driverless vehicle, which was undertaken on Google’s request. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which was signed into law in December 2015, also contains provisions that address certain concerns.

Since 2013, the Texas legislature has considered five separate bills addressing the use of driverless vehicle technology. Four were introduced in the state House and one in the state Senate. Unfortunately, every single bill was held up in committee, meaning none of them ever reached a vote. Texas remains one of several states with no state law addressing driverless vehicles.

Questions about accidents are not mere speculation. To date, Google’s self-driving vehicles have been involved in over a dozen accidents. Although human drivers who crashed into a Google car caused most of these accidents, questions remain as to how bills and liability should be handled, especially in “no-fault” insurance states (where each insured driver typically turns to his or her own policy for coverage first).

Posted in Blog, Catastrophic Personal Injury, Distracted Driving, Vehicle Accident | No Comments »

Both boys and girls may experience concussions while playing sports or engaging in other activities. But several new studies indicate that when girls receive a concussion, they may have more severe symptoms, suffer more damage, and need more time to heal.

One recent study tracked 549 patients – both boys and girls – who were treated at the Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin’s pediatric concussion clinic. The study found that the girls reported more severe symptoms than the boys, and that they needed 22 more days to recover from their concussions, on average, than the boys.

For many years, the causes, symptoms, and effects of concussions on young athletes were poorly understood. Recent research has helped shed light on the harm these traumatic brain injuries can cause, and it has led to coaches, players, and parents taking all blows to the head more seriously and watching carefully for symptoms of concussion.

A concussion is a type of traumatic brain injury typically caused by a blow to the head. A mild concussion causes temporary interference with ordinary cognitive functions, while a more serious concussion can cause long-lasting or even permanent damage. Symptoms of concussion include:

• Dizziness
• Nausea
• Headache or pain in the face, head, or neck
• Difficulty with memory, mood, or concentration
• Difficulty listening or carrying out cognitive tasks that are usually simple, like mental arithmetic or remembering place names
• Feeling fatigued, “spaced out,” or like something is “not quite right”

Studies have also noted that it takes longer to recover from concussions than previously believed – whether the patient is male or female. The commonly-cited seven to ten days for recovery may be far too short, according to the Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin. In their study, the average time to recovery was 44 days, or nearly two months, rather than one week.

Research in the last several years has also led to more nuanced insight into concussion and a greater movement to prevent and treat the injuries. PINK Concussions, founded in 2013, is an organization focusing on the effects of concussions in women. Its founder, Katherine Snedaker, started the project after her son suffered several concussions as a sixth grader. Snedaker is a survivor of multiple concussions herself.

Posted in Blog, Catastrophic Personal Injury, Traumatic Brain Injury | No Comments »

California had long been at the forefront of attempts to curb distracted driving accidents by limiting how drivers can use their phones behind the wheel. For instance, California was among the first states to ban handheld cell phone use and texting while driving. Now, the state has gone one step further: they’ve made it a ticketable offense to even be holding your cell phone while driving.

The goal of the new law is to close loopholes in the hands-free driving law, which allowed drivers to use their phones for things like setting GPS coordinates, as long as they weren’t talking or texting. Now, traffic officers may fine drivers $20 for a first offense and $50 for subsequent offenses anytime the driver is holding a phone.

While California and many other states have jumped to the front of the line on handheld cell phone bans, Texas has been among the states slow to adopt such a policy. While attempts to ban texting while driving in Texas have passed one or both chambers of our state legislature in 2011, 2013, and 2015, they were defeated – either by a governor’s veto or by the state Senate’s refusal to consider or pass the bills.

The state does ban handheld cell phone use – whether to talk or text – for certain groups. For instance, students learning to drive may not use a handheld phone in their first six months behind the wheel, and all drivers under age 18 are prohibited from using them. School bus drivers may not use their cell phones while driving if there are children on the bus, and no driver may text or use a handheld device if they’re in an school zone anywhere in the state.

Where the state legislature has failed to pass a law, however, the cities have stepped in. Over 90 Texas cities had an ordinance banning texting, handheld cell phone use, or any cell phone use within their borders as of January 2017. Fines range from $200 to $500.

For the foreseeable future, the cities may have to continue taking the lead on this issue. While no new legislation to ban texting while driving statewide has made it to the legislature, several state representatives and senators have already vowed to do whatever they can to prevent such a bill from becoming law.

Posted in Blog, Catastrophic Personal Injury, Distracted Driving, Vehicle Accident | No Comments »

You may have heard the term “bad faith insurance,” but was not sure what that actually meant. Bad faith insurance describes a claim that an insured person or business has against their insurance company for unlawful and inappropriate claims handling actions.  An insurance company owes a duty of good faith and fair dealing to the people and businesses it insures, and those people or businesses who believe that an insurance company has not acted fairly and in good faith may have a claim against the insurance company for common law bad faith and statutory violations.

In Texas, the principle behind bad faith law is derived from the notion that an insured is at a significant disadvantage both during the claims process and in a lawsuit against the insurance company. Considering the amount of money Texans pay toward their insurance premiums and the important protections insurance companies promise in return, insured parties need to be able to count on their insurers to reasonably provide the services and financial support called for by insurance contracts when covered losses occur.

To successfully pursue a common law bad faith claim against an insurance company, a plaintiff must show that the company’s conduct was unreasonable and that the company knew it.  In the words of the Texas Supreme Court decision on the matter, the conduct must be “egregious.” Statutory violations, on the other hand, work much like strict liability and the insurer can be held liable for damages caused by unreasonable delays in responding to and paying claims, as well as for misrepresentations regarding the policy, the claim, or coverage.

The duty of good faith and fair dealing originated in the common law (from court case decisions rather than by statute) when the Texas Supreme Court first recognized a covenant of good faith and fair dealing between an insurer and its insureds based upon the “special relationship” between insured and insurer.  In Texas, when insurance companies are adjusting their customers’ insurance claims, they also owe their insureds  statutory duties codified in Chapters 541 and 542 of the Texas Insurance Code.

The different types of insurance claims are basically classified in two ways, either a third party of first party claim.  A third party claim is one where a claim is made or a lawsuit is filed by a third party against an insured.  A common and easy to understand example of a third party claim is a typical personal injury lawsuit arising from a car wreck.  For example, when two vehicles are involved in a car wreck and one of the drivers sues the other driver. The driver who was sued would report the lawsuit to his/her automobile insurance carrier and, assuming the claim is covered by the insurance policy, the insurer will hire an attorney to represent the insured and defend him/her against the allegations and claims asserted in the lawsuit filed by the other driver, pay the attorney’s legal bills and ultimately, if necessary, pay money on behalf of the insured pursuant to a settlement or bench or jury verdict. Sometimes there is a question whether a third party lawsuit is covered by an insurance policy, which is called determining whether an insurance company owes a “duty to defend” it’s insured.  The duty of good faith and fair dealing that the insurance company owes to its insured when dealing with a third party claim against one of its insureds is often referred to as the Stowers doctrine, and it requires the insurance company to exercise that degree of care and diligence which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise in the management of his own business in determining whether to accept a settlement offer made to it. This duty is activated when a settlement demand is made that meets the following criteria, (1) the claim against the insured must be within the scope of coverage; (2) the demand must be within policy limits; and (3) the terms of the demand must be such that an ordinarily prudent insurer would accept it, considering the likelihood and degree of the insured’s potential exposure to an excess judgment.

In determining whether the claimant’s demand was reasonable under the circumstances, along with other factors, a judge or jury would consider how the claim investigation was conducted, the trial defense, and the insurer’s conduct during settlement negotiations. Nevertheless, the ultimate issue to be determined is whether the claimant’s demand was reasonable under the circumstances such that an ordinarily prudent insurer would have accepted it.

A first party insurance claim is a claim made by an insured to his/her own insurance company. A common example of a first party claim would be if an insured’s roof was damaged by a hailstorm and the insured then submits a claim to his/her homeowner’s insurance carrier for the damage done to the roof.

Chapters 541 and 542 of the Texas Insurance Code discussed above codifies the duties that an insurance company owes to its policyholders when adjusting first party insurance claims.

Chapter 541 sets out Unfair Methods of Competition, Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices that insurance companies should not engage in, as well as Unfair Settlement Practices, which includes things like: misrepresenting a material fact or policy provision; failing to attempt in good faith to effect a prompt, fair and equitable settlement where the insurer’s liability has become reasonably clear; failing to provide a policyholder with a reasonable explanation of why a claim was denied or offer of compromise; and refusing to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation.

Chapter 542, subchapter B of the Texas Insurance Code is also known as the “Prompt Payment of Claims Act” and it provides insurance companies a blueprint for acting in “good faith.” For example, not later than the 15th day or, if the insurer is an eligible surplus lines insurer, the 30th business day after an insurer receives notice of the claim, the insurer shall: (1) an acknowledge receipt of the claim notice; (2) advise that an investigation of the claim is being commenced (and begin the investigation); and (3) ask the insured to provide the insurance company with documents and information necessary to adjust and evaluate the claim.

Once the request is made, the burden is now upon the insured to provide the insurer with the requested documents or information and after the insurer has received all the information it requested, it then has fifteen (15) business days (or thirty (30) calendar days for arson claims) in which to decide the claim. If the insurer is unable to complete its evaluation of a claim within that time, it may request up to forty-five (45) additional calendar days (Note: not business days) in which to continue its evaluation of the claim. This request for additional time must be made in writing and provide the insured the reasons why such additional time is necessary. The insurer does not need the consent of its insured for such an extension, but it must give reasonable grounds for obtaining the additional time.

The insurance company’s decision must be made at the end of the 15/30 days or the additional 45 days, whichever is applicable. If the decision is made to pay the claim, payment must be submitted to the insured within five (5) business days. If the claim is denied, the denial must be in writing to the insured, stating the specific reasons for denial.

If a bad faith insurance claim proceeds to trial, it is possible for a successful plaintiff to recover compensatory damages – money for expenses incurred because of the unreasonable behavior of the insurer. In this context, compensatory damages can include not only financial losses but also damages for mental and emotional harm.

In addition, if the insurance company can be clearly shown to have behaved with either fraud or malice in its bad faith claim denial, the plaintiff policy holder may also receive exemplary damages, also called punitive damages – those meant to punish the insurer for its wrongful behavior. However, the Texas statute does cap the amount of punitive damages that may be assessed, except when the defendant insurer’s behavior was bad enough to violate certain criminal laws. Texas appears to be moving away from common law bad faith claims, which are often vague, to statutory claims, which are easier to prove, but may not lead to as much money for the plaintiff. However, the Texas Insurance Code still provides substantial remedies to policy holders against their insurers and is still considered a consumer-friendly statute in a pro-business state. If you believe your insurance company has not treated you fairly or has wrongfully denied or underpaid a valid claim, it is worth talking to a Texas attorney who understands bad faith claims in the state.

Whether you are a policy holder wondering whether your insurer has acted in bad faith or an insurance company seeking to defend against a bad faith claim or needing advice about the legal distinction between good and bad faith claim handling, an experienced insurance attorney should be consulted for advice and guidance.

Posted in Bad Faith, Blog | No Comments »

Investors should seek counsel prior to entering into any agreement in Texas involving a minority business interest, an ownership position with fewer remedies available should problems arise with management than in years past.

For 25 years courts of appeals in Texas recognized numerous equitable remedies, including a court-ordered buyout, when a minority shareholder established that the majority shareholder engaged in “oppressive” conduct.  However, in a landmark 6-3 opinion in 2014, the Texas Supreme Court disapproved of the manner in which courts of appeals had been applying the oppression doctrine and significantly limited its reach.

In Ritchie v. Rupe, 443 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. 2014), the court:

(1) rejected the “reasonable expectations” and “fair dealing” tests for oppression that courts of appeals had been applying in Texas since 1988 and adopted a definition requiring abuse of authority by management with intent to harm an owner in disregard of management’s honest business judgment;

(2) held that a rehabilitative receivership is the only remedy for oppression under Section 11.404 of the Business Organizations Code, and

(3) declined to recognize a common-law cause of action for oppression.

The majority in Ritchie v. Rupe discussed at length the policy reasons for its decision and “the adequacy of remedies that already exist.”

Today, the strategies that should be considered by minority owners aggrieved by a majority owner’s conduct in Texas with respect to the entity are:

• Characterize, where possible, the majority’s conduct as a breach of fiduciary duty to the entity:
• Seek damages or rely on equitable principles to recover a disgorgement remedy, court ordered dividends, or other injunctive relief for a breach of fiduciary duty to the entity based on improper benefit by the majority even if damages to the corporation or LLC cannot be shown; and
• Rely on the statutory provisions governing derivative suits involving closely held corporations and LLCs to recover directly for the breach of fiduciary duty to the entity (in contrast to the traditional result in a derivative suit where the recovery is paid to the entity).
• Establish the existence of an informal fiduciary duty owed by the majority to the minority based on a special relationship and pursue legal or equitable remedies, possibly including a court-ordered buyout.
• Characterize the majority’s conduct as grounds for a rehabilitating receivership or judicially decreed winding up.
• Characterize the majority’s conduct as a breach of contract between the minority owner and the entity or majority.
• Characterize the majority’s conduct as fraudulent.

In addition, minority shareholders in some cases may be able to avail themselves of one or more of the following causes of action: an accounting, conversion, fraudulent transfer, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. See Ritchie v. Rupe, 443 S.W.3d at 882 (listing these among various causes of action asserted by minority shareholders in prior cases to redress the same conduct on which oppression claims were based).

While there are potential remedies available, the Ritchie case has narrowed the road to recovery in Texas for shareholder oppression claims by minority interest owners.

Posted in Blog, Shareholder Disputes | No Comments »

Generally Speaking Holiday Party Hosts in Texas Can’t Be Held Liable For Accidents Caused By Guests Who Drink And Drive, But There Are A Few Important Exceptions

Many business owners we know and a few of our friends have asked us recently if they need to closely monitor the sobriety of their guests who leave and drive after holiday season social events.

Under Texas law, no cause of action is permitted in the social host context because our Courts have long held that a social host has no duty to prevent someone from drinking and driving.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code however does make actionable claims for damages against any adult 21 and over who:

1) knowingly serves or provides alcohol to a minor that contributed to a minor’s intoxication, or

2) knowingly allows the minor to be served or provided any of the alcoholic beverages that contributed to the minor’s intoxication on premises owned or leased by the adult. The adult must not be the intoxicated minor’s parent, guardian, or spouse, or have legal custody of the intoxicated minor for there to be a claim.

Simply stated, the law allows an injured person to seek damages from any host over age 21 who provides alcohol to a minor who is under age 18 if:

• the adult is not the parent, guardian, legal custodian, or spouse of the minor, and
• the adult knowingly served or provided an alcoholic beverage to the minor or allowed the minor to drink on any property owned by the adult.

When we examine the law and read between the lines we deduce:

Social hosts are only liable when they provide alcohol to minors who are NOT related to them. If a social host provides their own child with alcohol, no matter how bad that child may ultimately injure someone, the social host cannot be held liable.

The social host has to be 21 or older. So, if a 19-year-old provides alcohol to a neighbor kid who is 17, and that neighbor kid then kills someone in a drunken car crash, the social host is not liable.

Social hosts who serve alcohol to intoxicated individuals aged 18-20 are not liable for injuries. Even though the recipient of the alcohol may be a “minor” in terms of the legal age to buy alcohol, they are not considered to be a minor in terms of liability. The rationale is that if you are able to vote, serve in the military, and get married, you can’t blame others for your overindulgence in alcohol at a social gathering.

To be clear, though, the standard is different for bars since they are profiting from the sale of alcohol to adults.

We note that the social host doesn’t have to physically hand the alcohol to the minor themselves. Making it available (which is liberally interpreted) to a minor is enough to incur liability.

If a social host provides alcohol to a minor who is not their relative, they can be held liable for intoxication related injuries that the intoxicated minor inflicts on others or on themselves. So, if a 16-year-old is served alcohol at a party and then dies of alcohol poisoning, the social host can be liable.

Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Understanding a Trustee’s Duties of Competence: Part I

When managing a trust, a trustee in Texas has a number of duties. The largest category of these falls under the heading “duties of competence.”

These duties can all be classified as duties of “competence,” because they all relate to a trustee’s obligation to use the same skill and care that an “ordinary, capable and careful person” would use in conducting his or her own affairs. In other words, the duty of competence does not require the trustee to be a professional financier, accountant, or lawyer – but it does require the trustee to do things like research options, read the fine print, and consult professionals when necessary.

Duties that are included in the duty of competence include:

Duty to Review Assets and Make Decisions

When the trustee receives the trust’s assets, he or she must review them within a reasonable amount of time and make certain decisions as to how they will be handled. The trustee must also ensure that the trust portfolio complies with the trust’s rules and the Texas Trust Code.

Duty to Take and Keep Control of Trust Property

The trustee must take all reasonable steps to obtain and retain control of the property belonging to the trust, so that it cannot be lost, stolen, or compromised.

Duty to Keep and Render Accounts

The trustee has a duty to keep full, clear, and accurate accounts of the trust estate and to provide a written copy of these to the beneficiary upon request.

Duty to Comply With Texas’s “Prudent Investor” Rule

Sections 117.003 and 117.004 of the Texas Trust Code state that trustees must “invest and manage trust assets as a prudent investor would.” This includes considering the trust’s specific circumstances and using “reasonable care, skill, and caution” in making investment decisions.

Duty to Exercise Reasonable Care and Skill

When a trust involves something other than an investment, the trustee must use the same reasonable care and skill he or she would use in handling his or her own property.

Duty Not to Delegate

Trustees are required to administer the trust personally, rather than delegating this job to someone else. However, trustees may consult professionals like attorneys, lawyers, and brokers when necessary.

Posted in Blog | No Comments »

With almost 700,000 miles of highways and interstates, it is no surprise that Texas leads all other states in accidents involving large trucks and commercial motor vehicles.

In 2013, (the most recent data provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) 493 fatal accidents involving a large truck occurred in Texas. That number equates to 12.6% – more than twice any other state – of the total number of fatal accidents involving a large truck in the United States. That trend continued in 2015, as the Texas Department of Transportation reported 505 fatal crashes – out of a total of 34,230 – involving a commercial motor vehicle.

Due to this staggering number of accidents on our roads, our office receives many calls from victims or their families after having been involved in one of these accidents. Those potential clients tend to have similar questions and concerns, a few of which we have provided below along with our typical response.

1. How long do I have to file a lawsuit?

In Texas, the statute of limitations on an Austin personal injury claim is two years, but we recommend hiring an attorney and beginning the process of litigation much sooner than that.  Evidence related to the truck and the scene of the accident may be crucial to the case, so it is important to have that evidence inspected and preserved as soon as possible. We have also found it easier to obtain evidence such as data from the truck’s event recorder, the driver’s trip logs and cell phone records, and videos from a nearby store or a police officer’s dash camera if those items are requested soon after the accident.

2. How can we prove the accident was the truck driver’s fault?

There are many occasions when despite receiving a citation from an investigating officer, the truck company (or its insurance company) denies any liability.  There are also instances when an investigating officer accepts the truck driver’s story of the event and finds the potential client responsible for the accident.  This does not mean there is not a claim worth pursuing.  It just means there is heightened importance on the gathering and presentation of evidence to a jury.  Moving quickly to gather the evidence described above is the most important step, but hiring an accident reconstructionist is not far behind. A qualified engineer can analyze data related to the roadway, the dimensions of the truck and the truck’s speed of travel to create computer models of the accident that Texas courts routinely allow to be shown to a jury.  Shaw Cowart has established good working relationships with multiple engineers in this field.

3. What types of damages can I recover?

Generally, a plaintiff in a Texas personal injury lawsuit can recover damages for past and future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, and disfigurement.  (The spouse of the injured party may also have a claim for loss of consortium.)  In addition, punitive damages may be recoverable if there were aggravating circumstances related to the accident, such as a driver’s intoxication.

One thing that has significantly changed personal injury litigation in Texas is a change in the law a few years ago with regard to how medical bills are computed.  As part of a tort reform movement in Texas, the legislature instituted what is referred to as a “paid and incurred” limit to the amount a plaintiff can recover for its past medical bills. Health insurance companies often have agreements with medical providers to pay a reduced amount that is less than the total price charged to the patient.  In that event, a plaintiff now can only recover the amount that is actually paid or incurred, as opposed to the amount the medical provider charged before the insurance adjustment.

Because of this limit, it is very important to maximize the recovery of those elements of damages other than past medical treatment. We’ve found that the most effective way to maximize that recovery is to hire a qualified life care planner. The physician will examine the patient and prepare a written life care plan that details the type and amount of future medical treatment he or she will be required to undergo.  The life care planner will also detail any limitations the patient is likely to face when it comes to home, work and leisure activities.

4. Is there anything I can do about my mounting medical bills?

In the event the client does not have sufficient health insurance to cover the costs of medical treatment, there are a couple of options to help reduce the added stress of calls and letters from bill collectors.  First, we will review the client’s auto insurance policy to see if she paid for personal injury protection, or “PIP.”  In Texas, insurers are required to offer the insured PIP and obtain a signature denying that coverage.  If PIP coverage was purchased – or there is not a signed waiver of that purchase – PIP can be used to pay medical bills resulting from the accident.  One major benefit of PIP is that those payments are non-subrogable, meaning that the insurance company does not have to be paid back out of the client’s recovery.  Another tool a lawyer can use to help a client lacking the insurance or funds to obtain medical treatment is to provide the doctor with a letter of protection, or “LOP.”  A letter of protection is not a guarantee, but rather an assurance that the client has retained an attorney to recover money on his behalf and that the doctor’s bills will be paid out of any recovery.  It is quite common for medical providers in Texas to accept the attorney’s assurance that she will ensure that a doctor’s bills are paid once the case is resolved.

Please give Shaw Cowart a call at 512-499-8900 if you or someone you know has been involved in a truck accident. 

Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Pain, swelling, popping noise, lumps often indicate compensable injury

For the third time in five years, Stryker Corporation is recalling an artificial hip joint replacement product amid allegations of a defective design. Known as the LFIT Anatomic Cobalt-Chromium V40 Femoral Head, the device is associated with reports of severe injuries, including metal poisoning.  In some cases patients experience so much pain they must have a second surgery.

If you, a member of your family or a friend have recently received a letter from your surgeon indicating you are fitted with the Stryker LFIT V40 device, or if you or someone you know is experiencing any of the following symptoms following hip replacement surgery, contact Shaw Cowart today to determine whether you are eligible for compensation:

• Popping noises or squeaking during movement
• Dislocation, or feeling as though the joint has “slipped”
• Lumps near the affected hip
• Swelling in groin area or near hip
• Pain during walking or movement
• Inflammation

Stryker LFIT V40 Recall Issued

Announced at the end of August 2016, the recall affects all implants manufactured prior to 2012. The LFIT V40 was designed to replace the femur, where a medical professional would implant the top ball-like protrusion into the hip socket. According to Stryker, the defect occurred in the taper lock — the part that connects the stem of the femur to the product.

Once the LFIT V40 separates from the femoral stem, small bits of toxic metals are released into the bloodstream and surrounding tissue, putting the patient at risk of metallosis, or metal poisoning. Patients may experience inflammation and cell death, or necrosis, of the nearby muscle tissue and bones. In some severe cases, patients have reported complete LFIT V40 failure as the component breaks, causing a fracture in the patient’s own femur as well.

Prior to the Stryker LFIT V40 recall, two of the company’s previous models – the ABG II and the Rejuvenate – were also prone to corrosion, which caused small bits of metal to become embedded in the surrounding tissues. Following the recall of those models in 2012, Stryker ceased production on the products. To date, Stryker has paid more than $1 billion to settle claims associated with the ABG II and Rejuvenate modular-neck hip stems.

Contact Our Stryker Hip Device Lawyers Today

If you or someone you love was fitted with the Stryker LFIT V40 device and you are suffering from pain, inflammation or metallosis, contact us today. We review cases at no out-of-pocket cost to our clients to determine if there is a claim.  Those injured by defective hip implants are entitled to seek compensation for lost wages, pain and suffering and medical bills. Call toll free 512-499-8900.

Posted in Defective Devices | No Comments »

Shaw Cowart’s personal injury lawyers are now reviewing potential ovarian cancer lawsuits for women who used talcum powder and developed ovarian or uterine cancer. If you, a member of your family or friend have been diagnosed with ovarian or uterine cancer and used talc contact us– you may have a claim.

For more than four decades, experts in the medical industry have speculated that use of talcum powder has a direct correlation with cancer development in the female reproductive system. Now, women throughout the country are filing lawsuits against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, the largest distributor of talcum powder, alleging that the product gave them ovarian cancer.

Talcum Powder May Cause Cancer

Talc, made from a magnesium silicate mineral similar in its properties to asbestos, is a common household cosmetic used to keep people smelling fresh and to dry off skin after bathing. It is also regularly used on babies’ bottoms after a diaper change, and it is a routine part of hygiene in nearly 50% of all women in the U.S.

However, talc can form tiny shards that may break off and imbed themselves into parts of the body. If inhaled, these particles can become embedded into the lungs, causing respiratory difficulties. If used in the genital area, talcum powder can travel up into the vagina, embedding into the pelvis and leading to the development of ovarian cancer. One study found that daily use of talc, or baby powder, increased a woman’s chance of ovarian cancer by 41%.

Women File Talcum Powder Lawsuits, Alleging Uterine and Ovarian Cancer

In 2014, plaintiffs filed two class-action lawsuits against J&J, alleging that the manufacturer was responsible for the plaintiffs’ ovarian cancer diagnoses due to its Shower to Shower and baby powder products. J&J is accused of:

• Negligence
• Violating the Unfair Competition law
• Violating professional and business codes
• Violating consumers’ legal remedies
• Breach of implied warranty

On October 27, 2016, J&J lost its third straight trial over claims that its products caused ovarian cancer, with a jury in St. Louis awarding a California woman more than $70 million in compensation. The company is currently facing more than 1,700 lawsuits in federal and state courts in which plaintiffs maintain the company knew of the alleged link between cancer and talc yet failed to warn customers about this risk.

Contact Our Talc Powder Cancer Lawyers Today

We will review your potential claim, free of charge, and help you determine whether you are eligible to for compensation. Depending on your case, you could be entitled to recover compensation for pain and suffering, medical bills, lost wages and more. Request a free consultation today by calling toll free at 512-499-8900.

Posted in Blog, Defective Drugs | No Comments »