Rick Kuykendall notes this week's news: 

The Advisory Committee of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) met June 29 and 30, 2009 to discuss the risks to consumers for liver damage due to overdosing on the drug acetaminophen, one of the most commonly used active ingredients in medicines to relieve pain and fevers. Most people know that it’s in over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, like Tylenol and Excedrin, but it’s also in prescription drugs.

 

The FDA emphasizes that acetaminophen is generally safe when taken as directed currently and has been proven effective as a pain reliever and fever reducer. But acetaminophen can also cause liver damage when taken in excess of current recommended dosages. Nearly 500 deaths are attributed to an acetaminophen overdose each year.

A study of 22 specialty centers across the United States showed that an overdose of acetaminophen was the leading cause of acute liver failure for the years 1998 through 2003 and a 2007 study had similar findings. The FDA’s Advisory Committee warns that consumers may inadvertently take more acetaminophen than is safely recommended because of its widespread use in many drugs.

 

Source here.

 

Mr. Kuykendall began his law practice over twenty years ago in Birmingham, Alabama with one of the most successful union side Labor Law firms in the United States - Cooper, Mitch, Crawford and Kuykendall. After becoming the managing partner in 1983, he presided over the firm’s evolution into a successful and powerful plaintiff / public interest law firm with a nationwide practice. Despite the firm’s rapid growth and financial success, Rick never allowed it to deviate from its core mission of helping those who needed it the most, despite the odds.

Rick’s practice, while currently focused on complex litigation all over the country, also involves active efforts in alternative dispute resolution. Since 1995 he has been lead counsel or co-counsel in cases which resulted in verdicts and/or settlements far in excess of two billion dollars (over 500 million dollars since 2003 alone). These cases range from individual personal injuries to national mass and class actions in the areas of environmental, consumer and pharmaceutical law. Rick has served as a court appointed special master in the Anniston, Alabama Monsanto litigation.

 

Rick's daughter Amalee Kuykendall starts the University of Alabama this summer.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Attorney Rob Bunch is investigating these potential claims, and his number is 888-422-2882:

 

Hydroxycut Recall

 

The Recall:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers to immediately stop using Hydroxycut products by Iovate Health Sciences Inc., of Oakville, Ontario and distributed by Iovate Health Sciences USA Inc. of Blasdell, N.Y. Some Hydroxycut products are associated with a number of serious liver injuries. Iovate has agreed to recall Hydroxycut products from the market.

The FDA has received 23 reports of serious health problems ranging from jaundice and elevated liver enzymes, an indicator of potential liver injury, to liver damage requiring liver transplant. One death due to liver failure has been reported to the FDA. Other health problems reported include seizures; cardiovascular disorders; and rhabdomyolysis, a type of muscle damage that can lead to other serious health problems such as kidney failure.

Liver injury, although rare, was reported by patients at the doses of Hydroxycut recommended on the bottle. Symptoms of liver injury include jaundice (yellowing of the skin or whites of the eyes) and brown urine. Other symptoms include nausea, vomiting, light-colored stools, excessive fatigue, weakness, stomach or abdominal pain, itching, and loss of appetite.

“The FDA urges consumers to discontinue use of Hydroxycut products in order to avoid any undue risk. Adverse events are rare, but exist. Consumers should consult a physician or other health care professional if they are experiencing symptoms possibly associated with these products,” said Linda Katz, M.D., interim chief medical officer of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

Hydroxycut products are dietary supplements that are marketed for weight-loss, as fat burners, as energy-enhancers, as low carb diet aids, and for water loss under the Iovate and MuscleTech brand names.  The list of products being recalled by Iovate currently includes:

Hydroxycut Regular Rapid Release Caplets
Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Rapid Release Caplets
Hydroxycut Hardcore Liquid Caplets
Hydroxycut Max Liquid Caplets
Hydroxycut Regular Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Hardcore Drink Packets (Ignition Stix)
Hydroxycut Max Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Liquid Shots
Hydroxycut Hardcore RTDs (Ready-to-Drink)
Hydroxycut Max Aqua Shed
Hydroxycut 24
Hydroxycut Carb Control
Hydroxycut Natural

Although the FDA has not received reports of serious liver-related adverse reactions for all Hydroxycut products, Iovate has agreed to recall all the products listed above. Hydroxycut Cleanse and Hoodia products are not affected by the recall. Consumers who have any of the products involved in the recall are advised to stop using them and to return them to the place of purchase. The agency has not yet determined which ingredients, dosages, or other health-related factors may be associated with risks related to these Hydroxycut products. The products contain a variety of ingredients and herbal extracts.

Health care professionals and consumers are encouraged to report serious adverse events (side effects) or product quality problems with the use of these products to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program online, by regular mail, fax or phone.
The FDA continues to investigate the potential relationship between Hydroxycut dietary supplements and liver injury or other potentially serious side effects.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Four generic drug makers named as defendants Federal Court in Vermont were not permitted to seek an interlocutory appeal on a Motion for Summary Judgment which was filed by them. Each claimed that because the warning label was not designed or written by any of them, there was no liability.  

Reglan (metoclopramide) is prescribed for short-term treatment of gastrointestinal disorders, and is only supposed to be used for under 12 weeks.

 

Specifically, the makers of generic Reglan argued that they should be dismissed from the litigation because the plaintiff’s failure to warn claims are preempted by FDA regulations that require the generic version of medications to contain the same warning label as the branded version.

Back at the end of 2008, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, and the drug makers filed a request for an interlocutory appeal to immediately challenge the Court’s decision and stay the proceedings.

In an order issued April 10, 2009, Judge Sessions denied the request, which will require the generic drug makers to participate in discovery and further litigation of the case.

Attorneys Mark Zamora and Joey James are investigating these claims.

http://www.markzamora.com/reg/index.html

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

FDA Requires Boxed Warning and Risk Mitigation Strategy for Reglan and Metoclopramide-Containing Drugs

Alabama Attorney Joey James and Georgia and Florida licensed attorney Mark Zamora are investigating - Tel #888-422-2882, or email mark@mzlawyer.com.

 

 

From the FDA site:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that manufacturers of metoclopramide, a drug used to treat gastrointestinal disorders, must add a boxed warning to their drug labels about the risk of its long-term or high-dose use. Chronic use of metoclopramide has been linked to tardive dyskinesia, which may include involuntary and repetitive movements of the body, even after the drugs are no longer taken.

Manufacturers will be required to implement a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to ensure patients are provided with a medication guide that discusses this risk.

Current product labeling warns of the risk of tardive dyskinesia with chronic metoclopramide treatment. The development of this condition is directly related to the length of time a patient is taking metoclopramide and the number of doses taken. Those at greatest risk include the elderly, especially older women, and people who have been on the drug for a long time.

Tardive dyskinesia is characterized by involuntary, repetitive movements of the extremities, or lip smacking, grimacing, tongue protrusion, rapid eye movements or blinking, puckering and pursing of the lips, or impaired movement of the fingers. These symptoms are rarely reversible and there is no known treatment. However, in some patients, symptoms may lessen or resolve after metoclopramide treatment is stopped.

Metoclopramide works by speeding up the movement of the stomach muscles, thus increasing the rate at which the stomach empties into the intestines. It is used as a short-term treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients who have not responded to other therapies, and to treat diabetic gastroparesis (slowed emptying of the stomach’s contents into the intestines). It is recommended that treatment not exceed three months.

Metoclopramide is available in a variety of formulations including tablets, syrups and injections. Names of metoclopramide-containing products include Reglan Tablets, Reglan Oral Disintegrating Tablets, Metoclopramide Oral Solution, and Reglan Injection. More than two million Americans use these products.

What is Tardive Dyskinesia?

Tardive dyskinesias (TDs) are involuntary movements of the tongue, lips, face, trunk, and extremities that occur in patients treated with long-term dopaminergic antagonist medications. Although they are associated with the use of neuroleptics, TDs apparently existed before the development of neuroleptics. People with schizophrenia appear especially vulnerable to developing TDs after exposure to conventional neuroleptics, anticholinergics, toxins, substances of abuse, and other agents. TDs are most common in patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder who have been treated with antipsychotic medication for long periods, but TDs occasionally occur in other patients as well. For example, people with fetal alcohol syndrome, other developmental disabilities, and other brain disorders are vulnerable to the development of tardive dyskinesias, even after receiving a single dose of the causative agent.

TDs may be differentiated from acute movement disorders that commonly occur in the same patient groups. The acute movement disorders that occur as manifestations of effects of neuroleptics and other dopamine antagonists include akathisia, acute dystonia, and other hyperkinetic dyskinesias. Acute effects of dopamine antagonists also include Parkinsonian syndromes manifested by bradykinesia, rigidity, and pill rolling tremor. The acute movement disorders resulting from exposure to dopamine antagonists are commonly termed extrapyramidal syndromes (EPS).

Reglan- associated with Dystonia?

Symptoms vary according to the kind of dystonia involved. In most cases, dystonia tends to lead to abnormal posturing, particularly on movement. Many sufferers have continuous pain, cramping and relentless muscle spasms due to involuntary muscle movements.

Early symptoms may include loss of precision muscle coordination (sometimes first manifested in declining penmanship, frequent small injuries to the hands, dropped items and a noticeable increase in dropped or chipped dishes), cramping pain with sustained use and trembling. Significant muscle pain and cramping may result from very minor exertions like holding a book and turning pages. It may become difficult to find a comfortable position for arms and legs with even the minor exertions associated with holding arms crossed causing significant pain similar to restless leg syndrome. 

Affected persons may notice trembling in the diaphragm while breathing, or the need to place hands in pockets, under legs while sitting or under pillows while sleeping to keep them still and to reduce pain. Trembling in the jaw may be felt and heard while lying down, and the constant movement to avoid pain may result in the grinding and wearing down of teeth, or symptoms similar to TMD. The voice may crack frequently or become harsh, triggering frequent throat clearing. Swallowing can become difficult and accompanied by painful cramping.

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

For good hardworking people, it''s time to sound the alarm about proposed GA legislation:  

 

From the GTLA:

Governor Perdue wants to place the safety of Georgia’s citizens in the hands of a mismanaged federal bureaucracy

Georgia lawmakers introduced SB 101. Senate Bill 101 would grant new protections from product-liability suits to Georgia companies whose products have Food and Drug Administration approval.

In essence SB 101 seeks to rely on the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) amidst grave controversy while giving large pharmaceutical companies who harm Georgians a “Get out of Jail Free” card

Governor Perdue suggests that a federal bureaucracy embroiled in heavy controversy, the FDA, should have all the power in deciding the safety of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. SB 101 bars any Georgia citizen from bringing a products liability claim against a pharmaceutical corporation so long as it is headquartered or has 200 employees in Georgia and the product in question, either a drug or a medical device, is FDA approved.

“Vioxx was an FDA approved drug that harmed at least 139,000 people. If there were to be a drug or medical device made here in Georgia that injured or killed people like Vioxx did, Georgia residents would have absolutely no recourse. A person in Phoenix City, Alabama could pursue justice; a person in Columbus could not,” said Fred Orr, President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. “The Governor believes SB 101 will bring corporations to Georgia. But I don’t think we want the kind of business this legislation would attract as this bill says, “Move to Georgia! You can harm or kill our citizens and you will not be held accountable!”

The Governor stated early in the session that FDA approval “should mean something” and that it should protect corporations from lawsuits.

“The FDA can’t protect us from peanut butter. How can we possibly rely on the FDA to protect us from dangerous drugs and medical devices?” said Orr. “If a pharmaceutical corporation manufactures a drug or medical device that seriously harms or kills an innocent person, that corporation should not, under any circumstance, be shielded from accountability. The Governor has simply gone too far with this proposal.”

On February 2, 2009 President Obama had harsh words for the FDA and he urged Congress to conduct a complete review of the FDA after the agency failed to protect the public from contaminated peanut butter. At this time the contaminated peanut butter has killed 8 people and sickened over 500 people.

In addition to the agency’s failure to protect the public from peanut butter, as recently as the last month, the FDA has been at the center of three other nationally publicized controversies concerning alleged corruption, mismanagement, and claims of serious financial conflicts of interest. First the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report revealing that the FDA has failed to comply with a congressional mandate set nineteen years ago that requires manufacturers of medical devices to provide proof of rigorous testing and safety analysis to the FDA for all Tier 3 medical devices (classified as those devices that are implanted or that a person relies on for life) prior to approval.

Second, a group of FDA scientists went public with their allegations of corruption, mismanagement and coercion within the FDA. The scientists stated that the scientific review process for medical devices “has been corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk.” They allege that managers at the FDA lacked scientific knowledge and clinical expertise regarding medical devices and that they have ignored the experts and scientists within the FDA. The authors stated that they had been ordered to modify their findings and evaluations of medical devices—allowing for the approval of products that may not be safe.

And third, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a report uncovering a troublesome conflict of interest inherent in the FDA approval system. The FDA failed to collect information on financial ties between those that perform clinical tests and the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the product being tested in an alarming 42% of the cases. HHS claims that such financial ties may compromise the safety of the people in the clinical trials and the authenticity and integrity of the final research data.

“The scientists working at the FDA think that Americans are in danger. Other governmental entities report that the FDA is inept at keeping the American public safe. Yet Governor Perdue inexplicably thinks we should trust a corrupt federal bureaucracy to keep Georgians safe,” said Andy Childers, an Atlanta attorney.

National leaders in medicine don’t think that FDA approval is enough to keep people safe either. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in association with the case of Wyeth v Levine, multiple editors of the New England Journal of Medicine stated, “The FDA alone simply lacks the ability to serve as the sole guarantor of drug safety." The doctors went on to say that without civil lawsuits and the discovery they produce, "the FDA would be stripped of an essential source of information that the agency has consistently relied on when making its regulatory decisions, and the American public would be deprived of a vital deterrent against pharmaceutical company misconduct."


NOTE: For more information on the FDA approval process and other Government reports, please contact Rebecca DeHart at GTLA.



The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
Protecting the Constitutional Promise of Justice for all by
Guaranteeing the Right to Trial by Jury,
Preserving an Independent Judiciary, and
Providing Access to the Courts for all Georgian

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

My friends Joe Fried, Buck Rogers and Mike Goldberg have an Atlanta, GA based law firm that litigates trucking cases. They get results for consumers. They have just published the 2nd edition of their excellent treatise, the Motor Carrier Book. 

 

I spoke with Joe this week, and there are a limited number of free books he has to send to you, provided you only handle injury cases and don't defend insurance companies. I've highlighted several of the chapters. 

If you'd like a copy, email Joe Fried: joe@frg-law.com 

 

 

Book includes:

• The Basics of Interstate Motor Carriers
  

• Theories of Liability
  

• Driver Qualifications
  

• Hours of Service Regulations
  

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and
• Handling a Trucking Case
  

   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced a Class I recall of lot no. UD30654 of Healon D, an ophthalmic viscosurgical device (OVD) manufactured by Advanced Medical Optics Inc. (AMO) of Santa Ana, Calif. OVDs are viscoelastic materials used to maintain space in the eye during surgery. Typically, OVDs are pre-packaged in a syringe and are applied using a small tube.

 AMO received 66 adverse event reports associated with the recalled products. Tests of this lot revealed elevated levels of endotoxin, which has been associated with post-operative intraocular inflammation and TASS.

TASS is a post-operative, acute inflammation of the anterior segment of the eye (the front third of the eye including the cornea, iris and lens). TASS has been linked to solutions and devices used during eye surgery, such as OVDs, intraocular lenses and irrigation solutions.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

My office is investigating the makers of Total Body Formula, a supplement  that was recently recalled.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is advising consumers not to purchase or consume Total Body Formula in the flavors of Tropical Orange and Peach Nectar, or Total Body Mega Formula in the Orange/Tangerine flavor. The liquid dietary supplement products may cause severe adverse reactions, including significant hair loss, muscle cramps, diarrhea, joint pain and fatigue.

The Total Body Formula products are sold in eight-ounce and 32-ounce plastic bottles. The Total Body Mega Formula is sold in 32-ounce plastic bottles. Both products are distributed by Total Body Essential Nutrition of Atlanta. The company is the sole distributor of the products and has voluntarily recalled Total Body Formula in the flavors of Tropical Orange and Peach Nectar and Total Body Mega Formula in Orange/Tangerine flavor.

On May  1, 2008,  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s final analysis of certain flavors of "Total Body Formula" and "Total Body Mega Formula” has detected hazardous amounts of chromium.

FDA analysis of the products found high levels of chromium among other items. The samples contained up to 3,426 micrograms of chromium for the recommended serving (17 times the recommended intake). The recommended chromium intake for an adult ranges from 35 to 45 micrograms per day.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A good friend of mine and fellow attorney Joey James has been addressing wrongs caused by Central United. That company  issued  cancer policies, and  as has been argued successfully in court, failed  to do what it promised to do in those policies.

Now,  and without  any fanfare, there is a pending State Court class action involving Central United in Alabama which Joey James is NOT a part of, and to him may make little or no sense to policyholders (depending on the facts, and for some it may make sense). There is  a fast approaching deadline.

Mr. James writes this on his blog, http://centralunitedlawsuit.blogspot.com/:

You may also reach him at: 1-877-882-0095 by phone, joey@bunchandjames.com by email.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trucking cases require - as most will tell you - different discovery than other cases.  Here is a thorough  Request for Production of  Documents  that you can use in full or in part:

Will a Defendant fight your request? Probably: 
 

1. Copy of defendant’s document retention policy.

COLLISION

2. Make/model/year of tractor/trailer involved in Collision.
3. Copies of any photo/video of scene.
4. Copies of any measurements of scene.
5. Copies of any statements by interviewed witnesses.
6. Copies of any investigation of Collision
7. Copies of any reconstruction of Collision.
8. Copies of any interview with driver
9. List of physical evidence removed from scene/vehicles/driver/personal possessions.
10. Copies of all documents related to the load being transported on the trailer at time of Collision
11. Copy of the Collision report sent to USDOT
12. Copy of contract/agreement with company who shipped or was to receive load on trailer at time of Collision.
13. All records of any investigation, evaluation or finding by Defendant, relating to whether the Collision was preventable or non-preventable from the standpoint of its driver.
14. All documents generated by the Defendant company’s incident review board and/or internal organization that reviews incidents of its drivers concerning the chargeability of the incident.
15. A copy of the post Collision drug/alcohol report on driver as required by 49 C.F.R. & 382.303 and all related documents by defendant driver following the incident.

POLICIES/PROCEDURES/MANUALS

16. Copies of any policy, procedure, manuals, outlines, directives, memorandum or other prepared material dealing with the following:

            -Discovery responses propounded by adverse parties

            -Document retention

            -Information technology

            -Personnel/driver qualification

            -Driver training

            -Loss prevention

            -Dispatching

            -Compliance with FMCSR

            -Fleet maintenance

            -Collision/Collision investigation

            -Driver discipline/termination

            -Driver log acquisition and verification

            -Black box (ECM/DDEC/Etc.)placed on Defendants vehicles

            -Satellite tracking device (e.g. Qualcom) placed on Defendants     vehicles

            -Risk management

17. The parts and service manual for the tractor involved in the incident.
18. All policies and procedure manuals, memoranda or directives, standard operating procedures, training manuals or materials or videos, driver manuals, handbooks, presentations, employee manuals, handbooks or brochures and supplements and updates thereto used or prepared by or on behalf of the Defendant during the last 5 years.
19. All agenda and minutes of safety department meetings, along with the agenda and sign in sheets, for a time period of five years prior to the subject Collision to the present date
20. Copy of any policies, directives, procedures or similar material which in any way sets out, describes, or explains the policy or the Defendant with regard to the review of driver logs.
21. Copy of any policies, directives, procedures or similar material which in any way sets out, describes, or explains the policy or the Defendant with regard to the review of vehicle position histories from any satellite tracking device in Defendant’s tractors.
22. All contracts, policies, manuals, directions, instructions, stored/retrievable information, and procedures in the possession or control of the Defendant regarding the Qualcom System or similar satellite tracking system used by the Defendant on its tractors.
23. All policies, instructions, manuals, directions and procedures regarding dispatchers of the Defendant, including all training manuals and instructions used in training dispatchers

(company name)

24. Organizational chart showing all departments/divisions of Defendant
25. Organizational chart of Defendant’s safety department.
26. Organizational chart of Defendant’s maintenance department.
27. Organizational chart of Defendant’s log compliance/FMCSR compliance department.
28. Organizational chart of Defendant’s driver qualification/training department.
29. Organizational chart of Defendant’s dispatching department.
30. Organizational chart of Defendant’s information technology department.
31. Organizational chart of Defendant’s human resources department.
32. Copies of budget for last 5 years for safety training, driver training, fleet maintenance, advertisement for drivers, compliance with FMCSR, and dispatching.
33. List of log auditors name/address employed by Defendant within last 5 years.
34. Copies of instructions, manuals, notebooks or other prepared material dealing with the Defendant’s software system for payroll, maintenance, driver qualification and compliance with FMCSR.
35. Copies of data retention and back-up policies on all computer systems.
36. Copies of company policy on driver discipline for violation of FMCSR.
37. Copy of minimum qualifications for driver.
38. Copy of written policy on fleet repair and maintenance.
39. Copy of written policy on internal investigation and review of Collisions.
40. Copies of reportable Collisions and safety rating of defendant as given/assigned by the FMCSR for last 10 years.
41. Copies of any unsatisfactory safety rating by FMCSR.
42. Copies of advertisements utilized by the Defendant within last 5 years to solicit drivers in any state of the United States and any foreign country.
43. Copies of all liability insurance policies (including coverage pages) of the Defendant applicable to this Collision.
44. Full annual reports and audited financial statements of Defendant for the last 5 years, and all quarterly or interim financial statements for reports covering the period subsequent thereto.

DEFENDANT’S (year/model vehicle) INVOLVED IN COLLISION

45. Copies of any and all data, printouts, documents, charts, graphs or like material in possession of the defendant that was downloaded from any data gathering device (electronic control module) on Defendant’s tractor/trailer at the time of this Collision along with manuals/instructions on how to interpret the information.
46. Copies of any and all maintenance records on the Defendant’s tractor and trailer involved in this Collision for the last 5 years.
47. Copies of the fuel history of the tractor belonging to Defendant involved in this Collision for the last 5 years.
48. All documents or written material of every nature within the possession and/or control of the Defendant which contain information as to all drivers who have driven the tractor involved in this case in the last 5 years.
49. The parts and service manual for the tractor involved in the incident that is the subject of this litigation.
50. All vehicle condition reports and repair orders on the tractor involved in the Collision which is the subject of this action for the last 5 years before the Collision.
51. All documents within the possession and/or control of the defendant which contain information as to any Collision involving the defendant allegedly caused by mechanical failure of a tractor or trailer
52. All documents within the possession and/or control of the defendant which contain information of any on-board recording monitor, trip monitor, trip recorder, trip master, or device known by any other name which records information concerning the operation of the truck for the 30 days before the incident through the date of the incident.

DEFENDANT’S DRIVER, (name) , INVOLVED IN COLLISION

53. All driver logs within possession of defendant regardless of format be it paper, electronic or otherwise.
54. All driver vehicle inspections within possession of defendant regardless of format be it paper, electronic or otherwise.
55. With regard to the driver of the Defendants vehicle involved in this Collision produce copies of the following:

            -Employment history

            -Driving record

            -Copies of any and all alcohol and/or drug test administered on     the Defendant’s driver after collision which is subject to this     Cause of Action

            -Driver school records/CDL training records

            -Payroll records

            -Traffic violations last 5 years

            -Loan records

            -Discipline record with the Defendant Company

            -Collisions within last 5 years

            -Past employment history

            -Fuel records for last 5 years

            -Comdata fuel management records on driver for last 5 years

            -Credit card purchase records for last 5 years

            -Weight tickets for last 5 years

            -Dispatch records for last 5 years

            -Alcohol/drug test results for last 5 years

            -Employee evaluations for last 5 years

            -CDL records

            -Date/time/origin/destination of driver loads for last 5 years

OTHER SIMILAR CASES/CLAIMS

56. Copies of all files, data, documents, etc., related to any personal injury claimant where no suit was brought against Defendant within last 5 years.
57. Copies of all personal injury suits brought against defendant within last 5 years.
58. Caption (state/court/case #) of any personal injury lawsuit brought against Defendant within last 5 years.
59. Name/address of all Plaintiffs’ attorneys in personal injury lawsuits brought against Defendant’s within last 5 years.

ONBOARD SATELLITE TRACKING DEVICE

60. Copies of any and all data, printouts, documents, charts, graphs, or like material which in any way shows, demonstrates, catalogs, defines and/or alludes to any information from any satellite tracking device (e.g. Qualcom) located on the Defendants tractor/trailer involved in this Collision for the last year specifically including but not limited to the following:

            -Vehicle position histories/data

            -Driver contact/check calls

            -Messages to/from driver

            -Vehicle maintenance data/messages

            -Load information

            -Location histories

FMCSR

61. Any “out of service” stickers ever issued to the defendant from any governmental or regulatory agency of the United States or any state.
62. A copy of the periodic inspection report as required by 49 C.F.R. & 396.21
63. Any documents containing information as to any investigative inquires concerning the defendant driver as required by 49 C.R.F. & 391.23.
64. All safety management controls (as defined by 49 C.R.F. & 385.3) which the Defendant had in effect during 2004.
65. All Safety ratings (as defined by 49 C.R.F. Section 385.11) issued to the Defendant by any state or federal government agency for the last 5 years.
66. All notifications of Safety Ratings (as referenced in 49 C.R.F Section 385.11) provided to defendant by any state or federal governmental agency for the last 5 years.
67. All requests submitted by the Defendant for a change in safety rating pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Section 385.17 for the last 5 years.
68. Any and all records required to be kept pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 396.3, for the tractor or trailer operated by the Defendant’s driver at the time of this Collision.
69. Copies of all documents in the possession or control of the defendant regarding the use of an unqualified driver as set forth in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
70. Copies of all documents, records, or written materials of every nature within the possession or control of the Defendant which contain information concerning any driver being fined, penalized, or assessed any amount of money for drivers’ logs which do not comply with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
71. Copies of all DOT inspections and citations in possession or control of the Defendant where it was found that driver’s logs did not comply with the FMCSR.
72. Copies of any and all notice of claims, inspections, reports, compliance reviews, investigations, or like matters conducted on the Defendant by the FMCSR within the last 5 years.
73. Copies of all USDOT registers (history or Collisions required to be kept by FMCSR) of the Defendant for the last 5 years [§390.15(b) FMCSR].

DRIVER (name) GENERAL TRAINING AND SCHOOL

74. Provide all documents in possession or control of the defendant regarding driver turnover and driver retention.
75. Provide all documents in possession or control of the defendant regarding Collisions involving student trainees.
76. Provide al documents in possession or control of the defendant regarding Collision frequency of its drivers.
77. Provide all documents in possession or control of the defendant regarding trainee drivers hired by the Defendant.
78. Provide all documents in possession or control of the defendant regarding drivers hiring statistics, graphs, and profitability analyses.
79. Provide all documents in possession or control of the defendant regarding hiring of convicted felons.
80. Provide all documents in the possession or control of the defendant regarding hiring drivers who do not speak English.
81. Provide all documents in the possession or control of the defendant regarding advertising expenditures for hiring of drivers and all statistics graphs and profitability analyses regarding advertising expenditures of hiring of drivers.
82. All documents in possession or control of the defendant regarding the annual income expenditures, net profit, and profitability analyses of any driver training school which the Defendant had a financial interest.
83. All documents in the possession and control of the Defendant regarding revenues paid to any driver training school in which the Defendant had a financial interest in the last 5 years. 
    

MISCELLANEOUS

84. All physical, documentary, electronic and photographic/video evidence in possession of Defendant related to the Cause of Action.
85. Copies of any and all notices of claims, inspections, reports, compliance reviews, investigations, or like matters conducted on the Defendant by the SEC within the last 5 years.
86. Copies of any and all document, writing, chart, graph or similar material utilized by the Defendant to set times for the pickups, travel and/or delivering of loads (run time transit chart).
87. Any and all documents, writings, or exhibits of any kind in the possession, custody or control of the Defendant, the Defendant’s attorney, or anyone else listed in or used in the preparation of Defendant’s Answers to Interrogatories.
88. Any and all correspondence, reports, charts, photographs, drawings, videotapes, brochures, manual, memoranda, notes or other documents, materials or physical evidence of any kind which relate to any claim or defense in the action.
89. Any and all correspondence, reports, charts, photographs, videotapes, brochures, manuals, memoranda or other documents, materials or physical evidence of any kind received from, provided to or generated by any expert witness you expect to call as a witness at the trial of this case.
90. Any correspondence, reports, charts, photographs, drawings, videotapes, brochures, manual, memoranda, notes or other documents, materials or physical evidence of any kind relied upon by any expert witness in forming an opinion in this case whom Defendant expects to call as a witness at trial.
91. A current Curriculum Vitae of any expert witness you intend to use as a witness at the trial of this case.
92. Any documents, materials or physical evidence which Defendant contends are relevant or which it intends to introduce at the trial of this action.
93. All course materials used by Defendant, in any safe driving or defensive driving or training courses.
94. All internal audits, safety audits, reports of safety audits or reviews of defendants including those prepared by or for insurance companies for the last 5 years.
95. All correspondence between defendant and its insurance carriers concerning safety reports, reviews or audits or safety ratings for the last 5 years.
96. The claims log and/or Collision log pages from the date of the Collision.
97. Copies of all documents, materials, and records in the possession or control f the Defendant which in any manner relate to discrepancies between any drivers daily log and the vehicle position history of any driver.
98. All documents and materials which set forth the job description and duties of log auditors and dispatchers of the Defendant Company.
99. All documents and materials, electronic or otherwise, which relate in any manner to the number of the Defendant’s drivers or trucks in which dispatchers are in any manner responsible for.
100. All documents and materials, electronic or otherwise, which relate in any manner to the number of the Defendant’s drivers or trucks in which dispatchers are in any manner responsible for.
101. All documents and materials, electronic or otherwise, which relate in any manner to bonuses received by dispatchers, drivers, and all employees of the Defendant prior to the date of this Cause of Action.
102. All documents, materials, computer programs, directions, manuals, electronic data and procedures used to calculate run time (calculation of time necessary to deliver a shipment) in the possession or control of the Defendant.
103. Copies of all videos and training aids used by the Defendant in training their drivers regarding the consequences of driver fatigue while operating a truck.
104. List of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of other Defendant drivers who have been terminated within the last 5 years.
105. All documents or written material of every nature within the possession and/or control of the defendant which contains information as to all drivers who have driven the tractor involve in this case in the last 5 years.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks