Consumers Alerts

On April 1, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was asking manufacturers of all Zantac products to do a full recall because of an unsafe level of a potential cancer-causing impurity in these drugs. This includes all prescription and over-the-counter products.

This is the latest in a series of recalls related to the impurity N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which is a probable human carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance. Now the FDA has determined the amount of this impurity increases over time when products are stored at higher than room temperature.

In summer 2019, the FDA found out about independent laboratory testing that revealed NDMA in ranitidine. While small amounts of this substance are commonly found in food and water, sustained exposure to large amounts of this substance could increase your risk of developing cancer.

This led the FDA to issue a warning to the public in September 2019 because they did not have enough evidence to determine whether it was safe to continue taking these medications. The FDA advised the public to consider alternatives to this medication.

New tests done by the FDA found NDMA levels increase in ranitidine even under normal storage conditions. Also, testing showed the older a ranitidine product is, the higher the level of NDMA it is likely to have.

The FDA sent letters to all manufacturers requesting the withdrawal of these medications. The FDA advised consumers to stop taking over-the-counter ranitidine products, dispose of them properly, and not buy more. Those taking prescriptions should speak to their healthcare provider about alternatives before they stop taking this medication.

As we are in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA is telling patients and consumers not to take these medications to a drug take-back location but follow specific disposal instructions in the medication guide or package insert.

Schedule a Free Consultation if You Developed Cancer While on Zantac

TSR Injury Law offers a free consultation to those who developed bladder or stomach cancer while taking Zantac or other ranitidine medications. Research has linked these medications to a higher risk of cancer because of a harmful impurity.

Our Bloomington defective product lawyers may be able to pursue compensation for the costs of medical treatment, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages you may have suffered.

Our firm has recovered over $1 billion on behalf of our clients, and we have extensive knowledge of relevant laws and deadlines. Our goal is to obtain maximum compensation for your damages. No upfront fees for our services.

We are ready to take your call 24/7. (612) TSR-TIME

Earlier this month, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a warning to consumers to immediately stop using any inclined infant sleepers. These products have been connected to 73 infant deaths – in April there were less than 40 deaths linked to these products.

This warning comes months after the April recall of Fisher-Price’s Rock ‘n Play infant sleeper. Since then, inclined sleepers made by Kids II and Dorel Juvenile Group have also been pulled from the market. There was also a study released several weeks ago revealing the design of infant sleepers is inherently dangerous.

The CPSC’s safety warning applies to sleeping devices that allow babies to sleep at any angle greater than 10 degrees – this applies to most infant sleepers because these products usually have an angle of about 30 degrees.

The CPSC is advocating for federal rules to basically outlaw inclined sleepers that have an angle of more than 10 degrees. However, the process of setting new rules about this could take several months, so that is why the CPSC is telling parents to stop using inclined sleepers immediately.

CPSC Study on Inclined Sleep Products

The CPSC commissioned an independent study evaluating and testing inclined sleepers for infants.

Researchers watched 10 infants between the ages of two and six months while in inclined sleepers. Researchers noted the infants’ oxygen levels and movements and compared it to movements and oxygen levels of infants put on a flat mattress and those resting mattresses with varying degrees of inclines.

This research revealed babies on inclined sleepers were able to rollover more easily in inclined sleepers. When babies in these sleepers rolled over, oxygen levels dropped twice as much compared to babies who rolled over onto their stomachs on flat crib mattresses.

Infants in inclined sleepers also exhibited 250 percent more activity in their abdominal muscles than those on flat crib mattresses. The implication from this is babies could become exhausted while struggling to move onto their backs so they could breathe. This could result in suffocation.

The findings from this study are backed up by incident reports from parents whose babies were found dead in inclined sleepers. The reports say the babies had never rolled over in their sleep until they suffocated in an inclined sleeper.

“The study makes it clearer than ever that inclined sleepers place infants at a substantial risk of injury or death,” says William Wallace, the manager of home and safety policy for Consumer Reports.

The research also backs up what the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated about inclined sleepers: None of these products are safe because they typically position infants at an incline of up to 30 degrees. This organization says infants should sleep on their backs, alone, on a firm, flat surface. There should also not be any padding, bumpers or soft bedding.

Were You or a Loved One Injured by a Defective Product?

Product manufacturers are required to design, produce and distribute products that are safe for their intended use. If they release something that is defective or dangerous or carries unreasonable risks, manufacturers could potentially be held liable for damages suffered by consumers.

The Bloomington defective product lawyers at TSR Injury Law offer a free consultation to discuss defective product injuries. There is no obligation to take legal action after meeting with one of our lawyers.

Call to ask your legal questions. No upfront fees or legal obligations. (612) TSR-TIME

Because the average person knows so little about the complicated chemistry of prescription medication, most of us rely fully on our pharmacist to oversee our prescriptions and our health.

Unfortunately, the professionals we rely on sometimes fail us. Each year, 1.5 million people across the U.S. are injured after receiving the wrong medication or dose, or unknowingly taking prescriptions that should not be mixed together.

Minneapolis personal injury lawyers Steve Terry, Chuck Slane, Rich Ruohonen, and Nate Bjerke are prepared to represent victims of a variety of medication errors, including:

Incorrect Dosage Errors

Prescription drugs save countless lives every year. Unfortunately, prescription drug misuse and errors contribute to 1.5 million injuries every year. One of the more common prescription drug errors involves giving patients the wrong dose. Whether the dose a patient receives is too high or too low, the consequences can be severe.

Reasons for Dosage Errors

A dosage error can occur when a pharmacist misunderstands the dosage that a customer should receive, or when a pharmacist mistakenly gives a customer pills of the wrong strength. Commonly cited reasons for these errors include:

• The difficulty of reading handwritten prescriptions
• Overworked or distracted pharmacists
• Different pills that strongly resemble each other
• Typing errors

Pharmacists should not be allowed to hide behind these excuses. They should have to take responsibility for their mistakes.

Consequences of Dosage Errors

Any kind of dosage error can take a toll on a patient’s health. The consequences will vary depending on the drug and the patient, but some of the more dangerous problems that can be caused by drug labeling errors include:

• Progression of the initial condition (if under-dosed)
• Blood clots
• Seizures
• Severe psychological reactions
• Accidental death

Unexpected Drug Side Effects

Drug companies are expected to clearly report all potential side effects of the medications they produce. Additionally, doctors and pharmacists are required to educate patients about side effects they may experience, especially if the patient is on more than one medication. If not properly informed, patients may find themselves dealing with unexpected, life-threatening complications.

The side effects experienced will vary depending on the drug taken, the dosage, and personal factors about individual patients that are hard to predict. Any patient who is taking a new drug should keep in close contact with a medical professional and immediately report any unexpected side effects.

Failure to Educate

Drug side effects can hurt patients both physically and psychologically. Certain steps must be taken to minimize these risks, including:

• thorough testing before the drug is released
• full disclosure of test results
• education for doctors and pharmacists about side effects and drug interactions
• clear explanations for patients about potential complications

Unfortunately, all four of these steps at times are overlooked by drug companies, hospitals, and other members of the medical communities. The ones who pay for these oversights are the patients who unknowingly take dangerous drugs.

Medication Complications

Prescription drugs have complicated interactions with the chemicals of the human body. Those interactions can be difficult to predict. Of course, the more drugs a person is taking at the same time, the more complex and potentially harmful can be the interaction. This is precisely why doctors and pharmacists are expected to be fully educated about drug interactions and prescription side effects. They are also expected to present their patients with clear information about these issues.

Who Is Responsible for Drug Complications?

The blame for pharmaceutical errors can lie with different parties, depending on the circumstances. To list a few common examples of mistakes medical workers make:

• Pharmacists can fail to inform clients about the dangers of combining certain drugs, or using substances like alcohol while on certain drugs.
• Drug companies can release dangerous drugs without properly educating doctors and patients about the risks involved.
• Doctors and pharmacists can do a poor job keeping track of patients’ medical histories, including drugs they are already taking. This can cause them to prescribe drugs that a certain patient should not use due to drugs they are already taking.

Incorrect Prescriptions

Receiving the correct diagnosis for a condition can involve a good deal of time, but it is only the first step in achieving good health. Next, the problem must be treated adequately according to the best information available. Unfortunately there are many things that can go wrong at this stage, such as receiving the wrong prescription for a particular problem.

Causes of Incorrect Prescriptions

Injuries caused by prescription drug errors can be traced back to many causes, including:

• Emergency room workers giving the wrong drugs, or drugs that patients are allergic to
• Pharmacists making mistakes while filling prescriptions
• Doctors prescribing drugs based on incorrect or incomplete information about patients
• Wrong diagnosis
• Poor administration of drugs in hospitals

While the mistakes listed above could seem understandable in some cases, they are not excusable. All medical workers have a duty to keep their patients safe, and to do everything they can to restore the patient to health. Failing to meet this duty is negligent.

Incorrect Prescription Consequences

If you have been injured by a wrong prescription, you understand the complications. You may be facing staggering medical bills, missed work, chronic pain, and new disabilities. You may have even lost a loved one to a prescription error.

If you or a member of your family is facing these terrible consequences, you may have grounds for a lawsuit. You could potentially win compensation for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other related expenses.

Incorrect Labelling

Unfortunately, that is only half the story. Once complete information has been distributed to pharmacists, they are in charge of printing labels for prescription bottles that contain important details for patients. These details include:

• The name of the drug, strength of dosage, and a description of its appearance
• Instructions on what dose to take and how often
• Warnings about substances and activities to be avoided while on the drug

Dangerous Mistakes

Prescription errors can occur at any point when a pharmaceutical company is distributing information about a new drug. Some of the more grievous mistakes that can occur include:

• Side effects that are not named in the literature
• Incorrect information about the drug’s safety for different populations
• A lack of information about interaction with other drugs
• An error or typo on the label given to patients

These errors and others like them can cause serious complications, including psychological problems, stroke, seizures, and even death.

What Can I Do?

If you or a loved one has been injured by the mistakes of a negligent pharmacist, you do not have to suffer quietly. Filing a medical malpractice lawsuit can help you recover the money you have lost to past and future medical expenses related to your injury, as well as any wages you lost after taking time off to recover. You may also receive compensation for your pain and suffering. More importantly, you can hold negligent health care workers responsible for their careless errors.

For more information about medical malpractice suits, contact Minnesota pharmacy error attorneys of TSR Injury Law at (612) TSR-TIME or submit our contact form. Our attorneys are experts at proving liability.

The FDA has made public their findings within the New England Compounding Center (NECC), the pharmacy that is responsible for the meningitis outbreak that has made over 400 people sick and killed over 30. It is believed that thousands of people have been exposed to the fungus that caused fungal meningitis.

Rather than producing the tailor-made drugs for patients that the facility was allowed to produce, they became a major drug maker that supplied some of the most well-known hospitals in the country with medications. Some of the hospitals they supplied included Yale, Harvard, and the Mayo Clinic. They did this with very little oversight by federal regulators.

One area that officials were concerned with was how close the company is to a recycling plant. At this plant, there were many freight trucks, excavators, plastics, old mattresses, and other materials that caused a lot of dust to be released into the air. One of the owners of this recycling plant also owns the pharmacy and is known for not always complying with regulations and being the subject of complaints.

According to the inspection report, it is believed that the company’s practices led to the fungus contaminating the vials of methylprednisolone acetate, which is a pain medication that is administered through an epidural injection in the spine.

The inspectors noted that 83 of 321 of the vials that were examined in one lot contained the fungus that has been linked to the meningitis outbreak. They could visibly see that there was foreign matter in the vials that were greenish black in color. Another 17 of the vials had a white material within them.

The report states that NECC had only tested one vial from that particular lot and it was that vial that showed the medication to be sterile. The FDA tested a total of 50 vials and found all of them had some sort of microbial growth within them.

One of the most concerning findings was that the company’s own testing in 2012 found that the clean rooms had been contaminated with mold or bacteria that exceeded limits established by the own company. The levels were so high that remedial measures that should have been taken were never taken. There were some cases where entire testing dishes were filled with some kind of overgrowth.

There was also an issue with NECC’s air-conditioning system. Employees said the system would be shut off between 8 p.m. and 5:30 a.m. in the rooms where sterile drugs were manufactured. In drug manufacturing, it is important that proper humidity and temperature are maintained to keep microbes from growing.

The company says it will review the FDA’s report and continue to cooperate with the investigation. They said they will provide the FDA with the appropriate comments after they have had enough time to evaluate the report.

The neighboring recycling center was not a major factor in the investigation, but it did become a small part of the inquiry so that investigators could find out more about the possible role it plays. The report notes that the rooftop air conditioning units on the pharmacy are only 100 feet away from some of the recycling plant’s activities. Neighbors have complained about smells, dust, and debris that come from the plant.

Many medical facilities have been shaken up about the happenings within the NECC. This is because the 3,000 customers of the pharmacy trusted them to manufacture sterile medications.

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture has issued an alert to consumers to not handle or feed two brands of pet food to their animals after the MDA laboratory found the dog food to be contaminated with Salmonella.

The two brands that are affected are the 2lb Bravo! Raw Food Diet Chicken Blend for Dogs and Cats. This is a pet food product that is frozen and has production code 06/14/12. This production code can be found on the package’s white tag. The product was also manufactured by Bravo! And they are located in Manchester, CT. No other products from this manufacturer have been found to be contaminated.

The other product is Steve’s Real Food Inc.’s Turducken Canine Diet in the 8 ounce packages. This Murray, Utah-based product is also a frozen pet food product with the date 10/27/13 printed on the label and the code B209. These numbers can be found on the package’s lower front panel.

So far there are no reports of animal or human illnesses associated with the handling or consumption of the foods. Consumers have been asked to discard the products if they have them on-hand.

Salmonella is very dangerous to both humans and animals. A human that handles the food and then places their fingers in their mouth can contract it and become very ill.

Pets with Salmonella may experience fever, a decreased appetite, abdominal pain, and may even become lethargic and have bloody diarrhea and vomiting. Infected pets can also infect humans and other pets.

Human symptoms include abdominal pain, diarrhea, cramps, and fever. The symptoms typically appear within 12 to 72 hours after being exposed, but can begin even a week after exposure. The infection usually concludes in 5 to 7 days, but there are cases that require hospitalizations. In rare cases, the infection can result in death, especially in those with weakened immune systems and the elderly.

If you or a loved one suffers salmonella poisoning, you may be eligible for compensation. To learn more about your options, contact a personal injury lawyer in Bloomington, MN at TSR Injury Law for your free consultation.

If you have any RAYOVAC replacement battery packs in your home, you may want to take a look at them and determine whether or not they are one of the packs recalled by BatteriesPlus and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission at the end of August.

This comes after a recall of 111,800 units in December 2011. This time 65,300 of the NI-CD and NI-MH Cordless Tool Battery packs have been taken off of the shelves. This is due to the battery pack exploding unexpectedly. This can pose a significant risk to the customer, resulting in a product liability issue for the company.

The packs that are involved have part numbers that start with “CTL.” So if you have a RAYOVAC battery pack that starts with a part number that starts with those letters printed in white and is “NI-CD” or “NI-MH,” you may have a recalled pack. The voltage of the affected packs range from 2.4 and 18 volts and they come in different shapes and sizes. They were sold as replacement batteries for the following tool brands: Makita, Bosh, DeWalt, Black and Decker, Milwaukee, Lincoln, Skil, Panasonic, and Ryobi.

The packs were sold at BatteriesPlus retail stores around the country and online on the BatteriesPlus website at batteriesplus.com between June 2008 and July 2012. The cost of each pack ranged from $60 to $70. They were manufactured in China.

If you have one of these packs, you should stop using it immediately by removing it from the tool. You can then return the pack to a BatteriesPlus store for store credit.

If you have been injured by an exploding battery pack, you must seek immediate medical care. After seeking medical care, contact a personal injury attorney regarding the injury so that the incident can be properly investigated and you can be notified of your rights. The parties responsible for the problem can also be notified of the incident.

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. has recalled its DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing Systems and its ASR XL Acetablar Hip System, as well as its Pinnacle Hip Implant due to evidence that the products are defective. Claims of these defects have been coming out for years, but not before injuries were seen.

In addition to the DePuy recalls, the Zimmer Next Gen Knee Implant has resulted in patients requiring knee revision surgery due to the NexGen loosening and causing a great deal of pain. If you have been injured by any of these products, Terry, Slane, and Ruohonen can help you in holding the manufacturers responsible for the pain and suffering these defective products have caused you.

What Is The DePuy ASR Hip Implant?

The DePuy ASR Acetabular System is used for total hip replacement. The ASR Hip Resurfacing System is used in a newer procedure that is designed to preserve bone. The ASR Acetabular System has been approved by the FDA, but the hip resurfacing system has not been. Overall, about 93,000 of these devices have been implanted in patients all around the world.

The voluntary recall is the result of a British Joint Replacement Registry that showed approximately 12 percent of those who had received the implants needed to have revision surgeries or corrective procedures within five years of receiving the implants. This means that the failure rate is two times the industry average. Doctors have stated that the reason for this failure rate is a faulty design, and this faulty design was not discovered until the devices had already been implanted.

What About The DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant?

The DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant has yet to be recalled, but it could be next. Both patients and doctors have reported issues with the Pinnacle Hip Implant that are similar to that of the ASR Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System when the implant is used with a metal liner. The FDA has never approved the DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant to be used with a metal liner. When used with this liner, the implant becomes loose. Approximately 1,300 complaints regarding corrective surgery to remove and replace the implant have been logged. DePuy has yet to issue a recall, but this does not mean that the product is not defective. The FDA may eventually issue a recall, but the FDA is not always quick to do so.

Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant

The Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant is a piece that is not made of the standard cement and it attaches to the bottom of the thigh bone. Unfortunately, this product is showing a high failure rate. The blame has been placed upon the design, while Zimmer has blamed the surgeons, stating the failure is due to surgical errors or the type of patient receiving the implant.

Patients have experienced:

• Implant failure
• Knee pain and other knee complications
• Loosening of the implant

Each issue results in corrective surgery that can be expensive and very painful.

Call Today For a Free Consultation

If you have one of these implants and you are experiencing pain, discomfort, or you have already had to have revision surgery, call a Minneapolis defective product lawyer from TSR Injury Law at (612) TSR-TIME.

If you or a loved one has become ill with fungal meningitis resulting from an epidural steroid injection for back pain, it is important to speak with a personal injury attorney as soon as possible.

The Methylprednisolone acetate steroid injections were manufactured by New England Compounding Center (NECC) of Farmington, Massachusetts and delivered to seventy-six clinics in 23 states, including Minnesota. Administration of the steroid began on May 21, 2012. Many individuals have become ill and some have died. There was also a case of a patient receiving the injection for ankle pain and contracting a joint infection as a result. More of these cases may exist.

Fungal Meningitis Symptoms

Fungal Meningitis has an incubation period of 42 days, which is why those that received the initial injections took so long to become ill. However, the CDC is not entirely sure if 42 days is the longest the illness will incubate; it could be longer. Patients could experience subtle symptoms for month before becoming seriously ill. The early symptoms of fungal meningitis, which affects the spinal cord and membranous lining of the brain include:

The CDC has also stated that methylprednisone acetate is used to treat knee, ankle, and shoulder pain and it is expected that there will be more joint infection cases. The symptoms of a joint infection include pain or redness at the injection site, swelling, and fever.

A fungal infection in any part of the body can be cause for disability or death. In addition, the antifungal medications that are being used to treat the fungal infection can be difficult for patients to tolerate over time. It is unclear how the fungi found its way into the vials. After distribution of the steroid to the clinics, the FDA confiscated fifty sealed vials and found that they were contaminated. It is also unclear exactly how many individuals will require treatment. Nonetheless, having to deal with a life threatening illness involves a great deal of pain and suffering, as well as medical bills that are not the fault of the patient.

Fortunately, all infected patients and their families have rights and it is important to know those rights. Because of the injuries and medical costs, you may be entitled to compensation. In fact, the lawsuits against the manufacturer have already begun and representation by a Minneapolis fungal meningitis lawyer who is experienced in representing clients in infectious disease cases will yield the best results.

Contact A Fungal Meningitis Attorney

Fungal meningitis can be fatal or lead to permanent disability. If you have a loved one currently battling fungal meningitis or you have suffered from it and are recovering or recovered, contact Terry, Slane & Ruohonen as soon as possible to learn about your rights and options. Contact a personal injury lawyer in Minneapolis immediately at (612) TSR-TIME for a free consultation.

The wrongful death lawsuits resulting from a fire at the Bohemian Bed and Breakfast that killed six people in July 2011 have now been settled.

The lawsuits, settled in Brown County District Court on December 3rd, bring an end to a tragedy that took lives and injured other patrons. Those that were lost include the owner, Bobbi McCrea, McCrea’s 15-year-old daughter Abby, Three-year-old daughter Savannah, a Nebraska man, and a Wisconsin couple.

The couple from Wisconsin was Joseph and Dian Bergman and the Nebraska man was Andy Uhing. Uhing was visiting the bed and breakfast with his wife, Sandy, who escaped the fire when she jumped from the building.

Injured in the fire were Plymouth residents, Charles and Diane Frye, who were able to escape the fire, which is how they sustained their injuries.

In total, one injury claim and four wrongful death claims were filed against Bobbi McCrea’s estate. As for the amount of the settlements, the allocations and amounts are to remain confidential. The settlement was made primarily by conference call with one Mankato attorney appearing.

The initial claims that were filed against the McCrea estate were denied in District Court. The claim included one for over $1 million on behalf of the Bergmans. This resulted in the claims being handled privately, but all of the involved parties agreed to appoint a mediator to lead the process, which ultimately led to the private settlement.

It was determined that the accident was caused by unattended burning candles, resulting in the fire being ruled as accidental.

Summons and complaint filed against URS Corporation and Progressive Contractors Incorporated, by TSR Injury Law, on behalf of a 35W bridge collapse survivor.

The complaint includes an overview of the disaster:

• On August 1, 2007, the I-35W Bridge (“Bridge”) north of downtown Minneapolis collapsed into the Mississippi River.
• The Bridge collapse was the State’s worst man-made disaster. The Bridge collapse killed 13 people and injured over 145 people.
• The Bridge collapse never should have happened.
• The Bridge collapse was entirely avoidable.
• The Bridge collapse occurred because of the wrongdoing by Defendants URS Corporation and Progressive Contractors Incorporated, both of whom breached duties to the People of the State of Minnesota and the motoring public, including the Plaintiff.

DEFENDANT: URS Corporation (URS)

Defendant URS is a foreign, for-profit, engineering firm with more than 50,000 employees working in approximately 370 offices and job sites in more than 30 different countries. They are licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota. URS represents itself as a “world leader in infrastructure design and engineering”, which is “at the forefront of efforts to restore deteriorating and obsolete infrastructure” (e.g. bridges). Defendant URS held itself as an “expert” in the analysis and remediation of non-redundant truss bridges like the Bridge. Defendant URS even states: “WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY ACCIDENT IS PREVENTABLE.”

DEFENDANT: Progressive Contractors Incorporated (PCI)

Defendant PCI is a Minnesota domestic, for-profit corporation that provides bridge and highway contractor services.

History of the 35W Bridge

The Bridge was built in the early 1960s through contracts issued by the Minnesota Department of Highways (now known as the Minnesota Department of Transportation “Mn/DOT”). The Bridge was a truss bridge composed of connected elements that were stressed from tension and/or compression in response to dynamic loads and forces. The Bridge was also a “non-redundant” and “fracture-critical” bridge, meaning that the entire Bridge could (and did) collapse upon the failure of one critical element.

In 2003, Mn/DOT sought the expert advice of Defendant URS for the purpose of analyzing the Bridge’s integrity and safety and obtaining recommendations to ensure the Bridge’s integrity for the safety of the motoring public.

In that same year, Mn/DOT and Defendant URS entered into a series of contracts whereby URS promised and undertook to fully inspect and evaluate the Bridge’s integrity and safety and make recommendations to ensure the Bridge’s ongoing safety and integrity.
URS, among other things, specifically promised and undertook to:

• Participate in annual inspections of the Bridge;
• Assess the Bridge’s structural condition;
• Perform a structural evaluation of the Bridge’s fracture critical components;
• Inspect the Bridge’s critical components and joints, and monitor joint movements and prepare a report of findings;
• Inspect the Bridge’s critical members, connections and fatigue details;
• Inspect the Bridge’s rolling bearing supports for movement;
• Identify the main superstructure members of the truss-arch spans that were most susceptible to fatigue cracking;
• Evaluate the structural consequences should one of those members fail;
• Determine repair methods for fatigue cracks;
• Identify preferred staging of deck replacement to minimize stresses in the Bridge during such activity;
• Develop tension and compression failure criteria;
• Compute tension compression failure forces for all primary and secondary truss members and connections;
• Provide a final report by May 17, 2005, to the Mn/DOT with recommendations for ensuring the Bridge’s safety and integrity.

Defendant URS knew, or should have known, before August 1, 2007, that:

• The Bridge’s rolling bearing supports were locked or jammed;
• The Bridge could not move laterally as designed because the rolling bearing supports were locked due to corrosion, etc;
• Some of the Bridge’s gusset plates were 1” thick, while others were only ½” thick;
• The disparate size of the gusset plates compromised the Bridge’s safety and integrity;
• The ½-inch gusset plates at “U10” were deformed and buckled;
• The Bridge’s safety and integrity was compromised by deformed and buckled gusset plates;
• Defendant PCI’s work on the Bridge could produce a catastrophic sequence of events due to the effect of increased loads on the already significantly compromised Bridge.

Before August 1, 2007, Defendant URS told the Mn/DOT that:

• The gusset plates at U10 were in “good condition;”
• Gusset plate failure would not be catastrophic;
• The Bridge would last indefinitely with “proper inspection.”

Upon information and belief, as of August 1, 2007, more than three years after Defendant URS began its work and two years and three months beyond the original due date for its analysis and recommendations concerning the Bridge’s safety and integrity, URS had not provided the Mn/DOT with its final analysis and recommendations of the Bridge’s integrity and safety, and did nothing to rectify the known problems with the Bridge.

DECK RESURFACING

• On or before August 1, 2007, Defendant PCI, held itself out to the Mn/DOT and the public as an expert in construction and engineering.
• Before August 1, 2007, Defendant PCI began performing a deck-resurfacing project on the Bridge pursuant to its own contract with the Mn/DOT.
• Before August 1, 2007, both URS and PCI chose not to warn anyone of the potentially catastrophic effect of increased loads on the already significantly compromised Bridge.
• On the afternoon of August 1, 2007, approximately two to three hours before the Bridge collapsed, Defendant PCI, without authorization from the Mn/DOT, chose to place more than 500,000 pounds of construction equipment, material and vehicles onto the Bridge directly above the U10 nodes. PCI could have chosen to place the loads off the Bridge less than 1,000 feet away. But, instead, it chose not to. PCI’s choice on the placement of this additional weight played a substantial part in bringing about the Bridge’s collapse and fall of more than 108 feet into the 15-foot-deep Mississippi River.

Count I Negligence against URS

• With its claimed expertise, and in light of its undertakings, promises, and the standard of care, Defendant URS had a duty, responsibility and obligation to make sure the Bridge was in good and safe condition for the use of Minnesotans and others using the Bridge. URS failed in its duties, responsibilities and obligations.
• Defendant URS negligently failed to recognize and/or wrongfully ignored the urgency of the Bridge’s hazardous and compromised condition and failed to fulfill its duties, responsibilities, and promises to the motoring public to ensure the Bridge was safe and in good condition for use by the public.
• Defendant URS violated the applicable standard of care and was negligent in its engineering, analysis, and inspection of the Bridge.
• Defendant URS violated the applicable standard of care and was negligent in failing to warn the People of Minnesota and the Mn/DOT of the substantially compromised and hazardous condition of the Bridge.
• Defendant URS violated the applicable standard of care and was negligent in its inspection and evaluation of the safety and integrity of the Bridge. URS was in other ways negligent.
• Defendant URS’ actions and failure to act were in deliberate disregard of the rights and safety of the motoring public, including Plaintiff.
• Defendant URS’ negligence and violations of the applicable standard of care played a substantial part in bringing about the Bridge’s collapse and the Plaintiff’ resulting injuries and damages.

Count II Negligence against PCI

• Defendant PCI violated the applicable standard of care and was negligent in its performance of its work on the Bridge including, but not limited to, choosing to place large and concentrated loads onto the Bridge and by choosing to do so without authorization or regard to, or analysis of, the potential effects of its choice.
• Defendant PCI’s negligence and violations of the applicable standard of care played a substantial part in bringing about the Bridge’s collapse and Plaintiff’s resulting injuries and damages.

It was in 2009 that the Minnesota Department of Health the results of molecular testing were uploaded by Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) that involved a strain of E.coli. The exact strain was 0157:H7 and it was taken from a stool sample of a patient. After this, there were 13 additional strains that were identified in patients in 11 states. This means that there was a breakout.

The CDC and state investigators combed 17 states and found 25 patients that were a part of the outbreak. Twelve of those patients were hospitalized, one died, and one had Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome. Of the 22 individuals interviewed, 14 of them said they ate steak at a particular restaurant. Nine of the 14 said that steak was consumed at Applebee’s. Of the 7 that did not eat steak, they said they had consumed ground beef.

After some investigation, it was found that the outbreak was linked to a common source. The source was National Steak and Poultry (NSP).

On December 24, 2009, NSP recalled nearly 300,000 pounds of beef due to E.coli contamination. In January 2010, the CDC published their final investigation, which was supplemented by an MDH report that was published later in the year.

Investigators would also learn that not all of the patients that suffered from the outbreak had consumed steak the week before they became sick. These patients had consumed ground beef. In fact, approximately 40% of the patients interviewed said they had consumed ground beef. The beef was purchased by two retailers – Upper Lakes Foods and Cash Wise and Coborns. One distributor was also involved and it was shown that the ground beef had come from J&B Wholesale.

The beef that J&B Wholesale purchased was traced back to Tyson Fresh Meats in Illinois, Texas, and Kansas. The ground beef that was used in Tyson’s products were supplied by Beef Products Incorporation (BPI).

A gentleman who consumed the beef at the group home where he lived became very ill. Other patients also became ill and this is what has led to a lawsuit against all companies involved in the production and distribution of the beef that made them ill. The beef that the group home purchased was from Cub Foods and it has been found that the trim from Tyson was used in ground beef sold at Cub Foods. It is very unlikely that JBS or BPI supplied trim to Cub Foods.

When children are placed in daycare, parents are putting their trust in the providers to take care of their children as if they are their own. Unfortunately, Minnesota has seen daycare deaths double in the past 10 years.

Early in July, a daycare provider in Oakdale was charged with locking three children in a shed in her backyard. The incident occurred in February 2012.

Jennifer Lynn Goldetsky, 43, took the three children outside without jackets and shoes and locked them in the shed when Washington County licensors made an unexpected visit to check Goldetsky’s compliance.

What they found was that she had more children in her care than what she was licensed to have and took the three children out to the shed in a panic so that she would not get caught having more children than she was supposed to.

While the children that Goldetsky locked in the shed did not suffer any injuries, that has not been the case across Minnesota.

For instance, an infant died while in the care of an Eagan daycare.

In August 2011, Beverly Greenagel laid down a 3-month-old baby down on a blanket in the basement of her home so the baby could nap. Later that afternoon, a 12-yar-old child found the infant face down on the blanket, blood staining the blanket. It was later ruled by a medical examiner that the baby died of asphyxiation.

Jerry Kerber with the Department of Human Services in Minnesota said that there were 51 deaths in licensed daycares from 2007-2011 in the state. All but three of the deaths occurred at in-home daycare facilities rather than the large daycare centers. Most of the deaths are believed to be the result of unsafe sleeping arrangements for infants, as well as compliance violations such as overcrowding.

In the case of Greenagel, it wasn’t the first time that she was found in violation of state laws. She was issued a written reminder in 2002 to remove pillows from infant cribs. In 2007, a social worker saw an infant placed on the floor for a nap. Greenagel was once again reminded of state law. State law states that a licensed daycare provider is to place an infant in a crib on his or her back.

Depending upon how severe the violation is and the provider’s history, licensors can issue a citation or correction order. They may also recommend temporary suspensions, fines, indefinite suspensions, or revoke their license completely. Providers do have the ability to appeal decisions, which is what Greenagel did after the revocation of her license in February 2011.

This brings about the question of whether or not state laws are strong enough.

The Department of Human Services is currently reviewing training requirements for in-home providers and the Department does consult with the Minnesota Sudden Infant Death Center to stay on top of recommendations and has also received a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study all of the infant deaths that occur in the state with more emphasis put on those that occur in child care facilities.

Greenagel is currently being prosecuted by Dakota County for the death of the 3-month-old infant.

If you have lost a child while under the care of a day care facility, you may be eligible to file a damages lawsuit. To learn more about your legal options, contact the Minneapolis personal injury lawyers at TSR Injury Law today for a free consultation. Ph: (612) TSR-TIME.