iPump, Inc.

Posts Tagged ‘lawsuits’

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has agreed to repay more than $500 million to people whose benefits have been withheld since Jan. 1, 2007, because their names and birth dates matched those of people with arrest warrants.

Often the warrants involved traffic or other minor infractions, and sometimes were for completely different people with the same name.

The class action lawsuit, Martinez v. Astrue, settled last week by U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, in Oakland, Calif., will assist the 200,000 people. The agreement not only ordered restitution for 80,000 people wrongfully denied benefits, but it also enabled another 120,000 individuals who were refused assistance from 2000-2006 to reapply for help or ask for back payments.

Source:  New America Media. August 19, 2009.

As a parent of two children with diabetes, I know how hard it is to let children with diabetes attend field trips and other school events where there is little or no care provided by attending adults.  But it makes me incredibly sad as a parent to see that even mature teenagers may still need our guidance and care when it comes to diabetes.

People To People Leaders Allegedly Drank Beer While Student Was Dying
Allegations made by family of deceased student Tyler Hill

By Lisa Wade McCormick
ConsumerAffairs.com

August 7, 2009

Four delegation leaders on a People to People trip — in which a Minnesota teenager, Tyler Hill, with type 1 diabetes died — drank beer in their Tokyo hotel room instead of getting the 16-year-old the medical assistance he requested after he climbed Mt. Fuji.

That is one of the startling findings released today by the teen’s parents, who announced the official settlement of their civil action in the wrongful death lawsuit they filed in the wake their son’s June 29, 2007, death.

Read the Article

iPump’s board president, Jeffrey I. Ehrlich, and founder, Lahle A. Wolfe, were both actively involved with the ADA and DREDF in the following lawsuit affecting children with diabetes attending California public schools.

IMPORTANT BACK-TO-SCHOOL MESSAGE FROM DREDF AND ADA

to California Families of Children with Diabetes

- Please distribute broadly. -

Dear Diabetes Families,

PLEASE READ THE IMPORTANT MESSAGE BELOW on the current status of the legal issues related to diabetes care in California’s K-12 schools, or go to www.dredf.org/diabetes . Given the state’s serious fiscal crisis and its effect on local school budgets, we expect that an increasing number of school districts may be more reluctant/claim inability to provide needed diabetes care. Know your legal rights. Read the legal update below so you can effectively advocate for your child.

- Lisa Shenson, Diabetes Parent & Advocate
lshenson@hotmail.com

– An Important Message from DREDF and the American Diabetes Association -

To California Families of Children with Diabetes….

UPDATE ON THE LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVING DIABETES CARE IN K-12 SCHOOLS

(Issued July 2009)

The fight continues to ensure that children with diabetes in California get the care they need while at school. Given the state’s serious fiscal crisis and its effect on local school budgets, we expect that an increasing number of school districts may be more reluctant/claim inability to provide needed diabetes care. We want to let parents, health care professionals, and advocates know the status of school diabetes litigation in California and how to secure the care that children require.

In August 2007 the California Department of Education (CDE) issued a Legal Advisory to all California K-12 public schools to remind them of their obligations to uphold the legal rights of students with diabetes, including provision of related aids and health services, based on federal and state laws. One portion of the Legal Advisory states that unlicensed school personnel are allowed to administer insulin to students when a nurse is not available. Several nursing groups sued to overturn this portion of the Legal Advisory. In November 2008 a trial court judge ruled in their favor. Left unchallenged, the court ruling would have required CDE to change the Legal Advisory to remove any references to unlicensed personnel administering insulin.  Following the court ruling, ADA and CDE filed an appeal of the court ruling, which has not yet been decided.

In April 2009, a California Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court’s ruling is “stayed” during the appeal.  While this is not a decision on the merits of the case, it does mean that the lower court’s ruling has no effect until the appeal is decided.  Therefore, the entire original Legal Advisory remains in effect, and California school districts are permitted to train unlicensed personnel to administer insulin as detailed in the Legal Advisory.

If you are a parent/caregiver of a child with diabetes, you should take several important steps now, before school begins, to ensure that the 2009-10 school year goes smoothly:

1. Obtain updated medical orders from your child’s physician for the upcoming school year. The medical orders should explicitly state the child’s care needs including but not limited to:  timeframe(s) and dosing for medication (including insulin for carb consumption and treatment of elevated glucose levels, and glucagon for treatment of low blood glucose levels), timeframe(s) to perform glucose checks and  ketone checks, etc.

2. Inform the school in writing several weeks prior to the start of school that you need to meet with the school nurse and other key school personnel before school begins to discuss the specifics of how your child’s medical orders will be implemented. Emphasize this meeting is crucial to your child’s safety.

The following resources are available online at:  www.dredf.org/diabetes

• A model Sample 504 Plan and Sample Diabetes Medical Management Plan
• “Services for Students with Diabetes in Public Schools: Questions and Answers for California Parents and Guardians”
• A copy of the CDE Legal Advisory

If, after obtaining updated medical orders and working with your school, you are still unable to secure needed diabetes care services at school or during school-sponsored activities, DREDF needs to hear from you and will also guide you on how to advocate for your child. Even if you are successful in getting your child the care he or she needs, DREDF still wants to hear from you so that we can help other parents resolve similar issues.

To contact DREDF, follow these instructions:

1. Send an email to lcummings@dredf.org

2. In the subject line write, “Problem in a CA Public School”

3. In your email include the following information:

• Your Name and Phone Number

• Child’s Date of Birth

• Child’s Method of Insulin Administration (injection, pump)

• School Name

• School District Name and City

• Medical Needs Not Being Met

• Other Needs Not Being Met (e.g. field trips, medically-related absences, etc.)

• Whether School has a Nurse Only Policy for Insulin or Glucagon

• Frequency of Difficulty to Obtain Medical Services

• Indicate if Child has a 504 Plan, IEP, or Other Arrangement (explain)

Thank you for your continued help in keeping California students with diabetes safe at school.

-  Larisa Cummings, Staff Attorney/DREDF
-  Brian Dimmick, Staff Attorney/American Diabetes Association

We do not wish to alienate or offend Medtronic customers – and we must remind our blog readers that any and all medical device manufacturer is open to lawsuits.  But this recent news only serves to reaffirm our commitment to serving the best interest of our clients and our reason for focusing on working with companies whose business ethics value the safety of consumers.

Medtronic Paid Doctor to Testify Before Lawmakers

A medical professor at the University of Minnesota received $6,000 from medical device maker Medtronic in exchange for testimony that urged lawmakers to continue funding medical research involving a bone growth product called Infuse, according to the New York Times. The newspaper reports that Dr. David W. Polly Jr. failed to disclose that he was working as a consultant for Medtronic when he testified before a Senate panel in 2006. Documents released by Senator Charles E. Grassley show that Polly received $1.14 million in fees and expenses from Medtronic from 2003 to 2007.  Barry Meier, The New York Times 07/29/2009

The following is an excerpt updating the status of proposed legislation prompted by a lawsuit against Medtronic in which consumers lost.

From: Medtronic Lead Recall Center

…”On August 04, 2009 there was a hearing on S. 540: the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009. This legislation would reverse the 2008 Riegel Supreme Court decision and allow patients injured by medical devices the right to bring a claim for compensation. This legislation would also help remove harmful medical products from the market even if they were initially approved by the FDA. Class III medical devices include heart defibrillators, artificial valves, and prosthetic knees and hips.

Note: The 2008 Riegel Supreme Court decision denied patients who died or were injured by medical devices the right to bring a claim for compensation. In particular, Medtronic was not found liable for tort damages (such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc.) and therefore has continued to confidently offer a variety of medical devices with known defects – because of the limitations on how people could sue.

Our concern is this: If a client was injured or died as a result of an insulin pump improperly recertified by Medtronic, our client would have very little legal recourse against the company. While this would be true of any insulin pump manufacturers, it is the overall way in which Medtronic conducts business and the number of lawsuits against them for faulty medical devices that causes us concern.

…”Currently, the medical device industry enjoys complete immunity for their class III medical devices, even when the devices are found to be defective and dangerous, and have even been recalled. This benefits all patients by helping make sure that safe medical products are in the marketplace. The Medical Device Safety Act is vitally important for victims of defective Medtronic defibrillator leads who are currently left without any meaningful legal options and patients in general who use FDA approved medical devices.

More Information
Medtronic Class Action Lawsuits

Note: We are not in any way associated with, connected with, or receive any compensation or donations from the Medtronic Lead Recall Center. We merely capture and highlight this law firms news updates.