Older drivers represent the fastest growing segment of the driving population. As this group expands, so too have public safety concerns, given older drivers’ increased rate of motor vehicle collisions per mile driven.
Florida in 2004, passed a law requiring all drivers 80 and older to pass a vision test before they could renew their driver’s license. Since that time, research shows that death rates from car collisions decreased 17% among drivers 80 and older, Gerald McGwin Jr., Ph.D., of the University of Alabama, and colleagues reported in the November issue of Archives of Ophthalmology.
Although this is good news, the results do not appear to actually be linked to the vision acuity of the driver.
Accidents in this age group may be partly attributed to medical, functional, and cognitive impairments, but there is little evidence for an association between visual acuity and motor vehicle collisions.
While the the law removed visually impaired drivers from the road, 93.3% of those who sought license renewal were successful.
Of the older drivers who failed the test, 77% of the 12% , sought vision care and were then able to pass the test.
Some of the elderly drivers who considered themselves to have poor vision may have chosen not to seek renewal believing they could not pass the vision test.
It is also possible that the observed decline in fatalities may result from a variety of other factors, none having anything to do with removing visually impaired drivers from the road, or improving the vision of those who still drive.
Since driving is important to the well being of older adults, future research is needed to find the true mechanism responsible for the decline in accidents.
It is important to ensure that such laws do not remove visually impaired, yet potentially safe, older drivers from the road when in fact the responsible mechanism may not be vision-related, the researchers said.
President Bush’s dog, Barney, apparently had enough of the media when he sunk his teeeth into Reuters TV White House correspondent Jon Decker.First Dog Barney and his handler were out on the front lawn for a walk when Decker bent down to pet him. Decker insists he didn’t provoke Barney and the dog’s handler says that the reaction was very unlike Barney.
Adam Goldfarb, an ‘Issues Specialist’ on dangerous dogs and dog bites, had this to say after viewing the incriminating video.
In Duval County (Jacksonville) Florida there is an Animal Control Ordinance in place under Section 462 of the City of Jacksonville Code titled the Jacksonville Florida Animal Control Ordinance. The Animal Control Ordinance covers topics including dog bites, dangerous dogs, and leash law.
Barney was on his own property but if there is a problem with an “At Large” dog or a dangerous dog, you can contact the City of Jacksonville Animal Control Department.
Florida’s Dog Bite Statute applies state wide and is not contingent on any of the various leash laws in place for counties and cities. Dog bites have legal consequences and a personal Injury Lawyer/ dog bite lawyer can assist you with these matters.
For tips on avoiding dog bites visit Michael E. Seelie, Personal Injury Attorney.
The NHTSA (The National Highway and Traffic SAfety Administration) is the nation’s agency for monitoring motor vehicle and highway safety. Just how the FDA is soley responsible for keeping consumers safe from the dangerous pharmaceuticals that are in circulation, the NHTSA is responsible for setting the safety standards that auto manufacturers must follow and for recalling defective products in the automobile industry.
According to the watchdog group Public Citizen, every year more than 10.000 people die in rollowver crashes. We have seen a decline in the quality of service with agencies like the FDA and NHTSA. Despite numberous requests from different safety organizations and congress over the last 20 years, they still have not established a roof crush standard.
In the case of the NHTSA, Congress required them to propose a new roof crush standard by July 1, 2008. Since then, they have recieved two extensions on time and are asking for a third. The current roof crush resistance standard has been in effect since 1973, long before the time of SUV’s.
The NHTSA has had three years to develop a new roof-crush resistance standard, but has yet to follow through, choosing instead to defend weak proposals already met by the majority of auto makers.
Consumers deserve a better standard, and Auto manufacturers need to be held responsible when their products aren’t safe.
Covidien Ltd is recalling nearly half a million single-use syringes that could pose a serious risk to diabetics.
During the packaging process, some syringes labeled for use with U-40 insulin were mixed with syringes labeled for use with U-100 insulin.
The ReliOn syringes were mislabeled during the packaging process and could lead to patients receiving an insulin overdose of as much as 2.5 times the intended dose which could in turn lead to low blood sugar levels and serious health consequences, including death.
The syringes were sold at Wal-Mart stores and Sam’s Clubs from August 1 until October 8, the FDA said.
The FDA said the manufacturer has received one adverse report related to a syringe from the lot numbered 813900.
Consumers and health care professionals who suspect they have the recalled product may contact Covidien at 866-780-5436 or www.relion.com/recall for more information.
The Jacksonville Times Union tonight reports that a former staffer at a St. Augustine group home faces up to 10 years in prison and a $5,000 fine after he was charged with handcuffing a disabled client to a chair.The victim,39, suffered from severe developmental disabilities. The employee was arrested for false imprisonment and abuse of a disabled adult.
The safety of a disabled person is always a concern in a group living environment. Abuse and neglect in nursing homes and in group homes can be reported to the state of Florida Department of Children and Families. http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/abuse/report/ If you suspect that someone you love has been abused or neglected in the care of a group home or nursing home, it is important to hire an attorney who is experienced in these matters and will fight for the rights of those who cannot do so for themselves.
RAPTIVA,a medicine given by injectionused to treat adult patients (18 years or older) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, may cause life-threatening infections, including bacterial sepsis, viral meningitis, invasive fungal disease, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy and other opportunistic infections.
The FDA notified healthcare professionals of extensive labeling changes, including a Boxed Warning, to highlight these risks.
In addition, the prescribing information will be updated to describe a potential risk for the permanent suppression of the immune system with repeat administration of Raptiva in children. Raptiva is not approved for children under 18 years of age.
Doctors and other prescribers should carefully evaluate and weigh the risk/benefit profile of Raptiva for patients who would be more susceptible to these risks. Health care professionals should monitor patients treated with Raptiva for the signs and symptoms of these adverse events and also instruct patients to report any such signs and symptoms to them without delay.
Patients with pre-existing infections or who have a compromised immune system should notify their health care professional before beginning treatment with Raptiva.
This release comes at a time when we await the Supreme Courts decision on Wyeth v. Levine that could determine whether federal regulation can block patients from suing drug makers in state courts. The question before the court is whether the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of drug labels should knock out state lawsuits that contend the labels did not contain adequate warnings.
The Supreme Court seemed divided today while hearing oral arguments in Levine v. Wyeth.
Levine, a musician, had her arm amputated after gangrene set in. The Gangrene was caused when an IV push, designed to speed delivery of the drug into her bloodstream to counteract nausea caused by a migraine, hit an artery instead of a vein.
Levine’s Attoreny, David Frederick, argued that Wyeth and FDA were aware of the danger, which was indicated in the labeling, but that the warning was insufficiently strong and that Wyeth should have strengthened cautions.
Wyeth argues that the FDA did not allow such a label change.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia appeared to be siding with Wyeth. Wyeth lawyer Seth Waxman said: “We cannot have a world in which the very day after an intensive process – the FDA says you may distribute this drug, but you must use this specific language – either A, manufacturers can just run in and change the label and ask for permission down the road, or …. a state legislature or 50 state legislatures can decide because you could have gone back and asked, we can impose an obligation on you that you must have done so or must have changed the labeling.”
Edwin Kneedler, representing the government, agreed. “It’s been the FDA’s long-standing interpretation that only new information would justify a change [in labeling],” said Kneedler.
Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy seemed inclined towards the plaintiff.
Justice Samuel Alito wondered: “how could the FDA [have] concluded that IV push was safe and effective when on the benefit side of this you don’t have a life-saving drug, you have a drug that relieves nausea, and on the risk side, you have the risk of gangrene?”
Justice Ginsburg asked: “No matter what benefit there was, how could the benefit outweigh that substantial risk?”
Justice Souter said: “as I understand it, the company, Wyeth, could have gone back to the FDA at any time and said …. We think the label ought to be changed to say ‘Don’t use IV push.’ Wyeth could have done that at any time, and it simply didn’t do it.”
David Frederick, representing the plaintiff, argued that “the label itself is not set in stone …. Manufacturers change their labels all the time as new drug risks come in, and the regulations provide that the manufacturer is responsible not only for the label but for monitoring post-market information.”
The full transcript of the hearing is available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/06-1249.pdf
Automobile accidents are a common cause of brain injury in a young child. Because a child’s brain is undeveloped, it may take years to realize the impairments that the child faces as a result of a brain injury. Here are some facts surrounding children and brain injuries.
- New research shows that younger children, especially between birth and five years may experience more long-term challenges than an older child.
- Measures commonly used to evaluate brain injury severity were developed for adults, not children.
- Children do not lose consciousness as easily as adults.
- Motor function is not a direct indicator of cognitive or behavioral recovery.
- Intelligence tests often are unreliable measures of a child’s learning ability after TBI. Most intelligence tests measure prior learning.
- The majority of brain injuries occur to children under 10.
- A child’s different brain lobes maturate at different periods of time.
- In examining the long-term effects of traumatic brain injury on children it is important to look as to whether the child has any pre-existing learning disabilities, pre-existing neurological or psychiatric problems and whether there is a history of family problems.
All these issues are factors for poor outcome for children who have suffered a traumatic brain injury. If the injury is a result of a car accident, it is important to choose an attorney that understand Daubert issues in traumatic Brain injury cases.
As Levine V. Wyeth gets ready to be argued in front of the Supreme Court on Monday, a report released from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee: says that top scientists and career employees at the Food and Drug Administration had opposed the agency regulations that weaken consumers’ ability to sue drug makers.
The issue is language in a drug-labeling rule from 2006 that effectively limits when people can sue in state court over injury claims involving medications. The FDA contends pre-emption, which is when federal regulations prevail when there is a conflict with state law. The concept of pre-emption is being used as a way to prevent a person from suing a drug company if they are injured by a drug, as long as the drug had recieved approval from the FDA.
The recently released report highlights internal FDA documents which show high-ranking career officials repeatedly warning about the dangers of not allowing drug companies to add additional warnings to their labels without FDA approval.
The report cites Dr. John Jenkins, the highest official in FDA’s new drug review process, writing:
[M]uch of the argument for why we are proposing to invoke preemption seems to be based on the false assumption that the FDA approved labeling is fully accurate and up-to-date in a real time basis. We know that such an assumption is false.”For Further Reading: Associated Press story on the issue:
