SafetyLitigation.com
content top

Indemnity Agreement Precludes Temporary Employee Provider’s Recovery of Workers’ Compensation Claim Payments in Illinois

The plaintiff, a temporary employee provider, signed an indemnity agreement with the defendant, a company that “borrowed” the temporary employees, agreeing to indemnify the defendant “against any and all claims” asserted by the temporary employees “as a result of or incidental to the work performed.”  The temporary employee provider alleged it was due $1.6 million under the Illinois...

U.S. District Judge Excludes FDA 510(k) Evidence in Medical Device MDL

In an MDL regarding the safety of certain medical devices, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted the plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude FDA 510(k) evidence related to the FDA’s pre-market notification process on the grounds that the process does not go to the safety or efficacy of medical devices and because of the potential to mislead and...

Pain Pump Manufacturer Obtains Summary Judgment Where Alleged Injuries Not Reasonably Foreseeable at Time of Device’s Use

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the manufacturer of a pain pump inserted into a patient’s shoulder to infuse anesthetic while she recovered from surgery in 2002.  The patient brought suit alleging that the pain pump caused chondrolysis (the loss of articular cartilage in a joint) on theories of negligence and strict products liability for...

Alleged Safety Failures in Transporting Crude by Rail Leads to Criminal Charges

The Quebec prosecutor’s office has announced it will seek criminal charges against a rail company and three of its employees following the Lac-Mégantic derailment and explosion last year. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions posted the public statement on the government’s website last evening. The statement asserts, “After having analyzed the body of evidence, the three...

U.S. Secretary of Labor’s Reasonable Interpretation of Safety Regulation Trumps Conflicting Interpretation of OSHA Review Commission

Where the U.S. Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of a safety regulation conflicts with the OSHA Review Commission’s interpretation, the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation governs as long as it is reasonable.  The Eighth Circuit confronted this question in reviewing conflicting interpretations of a safety regulation governing requirements for machinery guarding, 29 C.F.R. §...

« Older Entries Next Entries »