Consumers Alerts

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.

In December, a couple filed a lawsuit against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals after Reglan, a gastrointestinal drug, allegedly caused her to experience severe side effects. Candis and Walter Jansen, the plaintiffs, filed their lawsuit in the Superior Court of San Francisco County because this is the area in which the current mass tort against the company is occurring. In this mass tort lawsuit, there are dozens of plaintiffs seeking monetary compensation for the illnesses and injuries they have allegedly gone through as a result of using the drug. The Jansen’s are seeking compensation for Candis’s injuries and for other hardships that have occurred as a direct result of the side effects.

In the Jansens’ particular case, Candis was prescribed Reglan in 2005 because she was having severe heartburn. She continued to take Reglan until 2009, as instructed by her doctor. Both Candis and her doctor were relying on warnings and information provided to them by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which they state did not include information about certain side effects and injuries. These side effects and injuries include involuntary facial movements, amongst others.

When Candis experienced the side effects, she was not aware that the Reglan could be causing them.

In their lawsuit, the Jansens claim that Candis Jansen developed a number of debilitating injuries and side effects. Involuntary facial movements and various other movement disorders have developed and they are permanent. The movement disorders that she is experiencing are characterized by uncontrollable and involuntary muscle twitching and twitching of the limbs, face, and other body parts. Her desires are to hold the defendants liable for disability, disfigurement, pain. She has also experienced psychological injuries and mounting medical bills.

Reglan currently has a black box warning ordered by the FDA, but this warning was not implemented until 2009. The late warning meant it was too late for patients, including Candis Jansen. In their suit, they are charging Wyeth with fraud, failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, violations against professions and businesses, breach of implied warranties, and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Walter Jansen has also charged the company with loss of consortium because of his wife’s disabilities.

Have you consumed Reglan and experienced serious side effects? Contact a Bloomington personal injury lawyer from TSR Injury Law today to find out if you have grounds to file a damages claim. The initial consultation is free and there are no upfront fees if we agree to take on your case.

TSR Injury Law – Ph: (612) TSR-TIME.

Russell Weber of Minnesota filed his Chantix claim against the manufacturer, Pfizer in October 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This is the Southern Division.

The plaintiff used the Master Short Form Complaint and decided to file the lawsuit in Alabama instead of Minnesota in order to take part in what is called a “multidistrict litigation,” or MDL, case. This was the chosen route because the pretrial processes of a number of Chantix lawsuits are combined so that the legal process can move forward more quickly.

In his dangerous drug lawsuit, Weber claims that he began the smoking cessation drug in 2008. He alleges that the medication caused him to suffer from paranoia, aggression, anxiety, and vivid dreams. These are side effects that are commonly referred to by Chantix plaintiffs. An additional side effect that has been reported in connection with the drug is attempted suicide or thoughts of suicide.

Research has shown that Chantix can have some rather significant psychological effects because it blocks dopamine activation in the brain. Dopamine is a chemical that contributes to smoking addiction, but it also helps regulate the brain in the way of depression and serious mental health issues. In other words, it is a “happy chemical” within the brain.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had required Pfizer to place a black-box warning on the drug because of the suicide rate and the number of serious risks. There was one period of 18 months that Pfizer had received nearly 300 suicide and depression reports in connection with Chantix use. This is why they issued the black-box warning, which is the most serious warning that can be issued by the FDA without having to declare a mandatory recall.

The lawsuits that have been filed against Pfizer are filed in order to try and receive monetary compensation that can cover lost wages, medical bills, and other costs that are associated with the side effects patients have experienced while taking Chantix. Family members who have lost loved ones to suicide after taking Chantix have also filed lawsuits against the drug maker.

If you have consumed Chantix and suffered serious side effects, we encourage you to contact a personal injury lawyer in Bloomington, MN at TSR Injury Law today. We charge no upfront fees if we take on your case and are ready to help you today.

Free Consultation. Ph: (612) TSR-TIME.

Months after the fungal meningitis infections started to surface, the deaths have continued to climb. The cause was contaminated pain shots and pharmacists say that they believe such a contamination and outbreak could happen again.

Approximately 13 percent of pharmacy technicians, pharmacist, and others that have responded to polls about the issue have said that they believe contamination had occurred in their own shops in 2012. They types of drugs they are referring to are the same steroids as those administered through injection that killed 45 and infected nearly 700. The steroid was made by New England Compounding Center and an inspection of their facility found mold and other contaminants, as well as the shop’s close proximity to a junk yard.

The president of the ISMP, which monitors the safety of medication, has said that they have been aware of the risks for quite some time. He has said that consumers are still at risk and they need to know that fact.

The fungal meningitis outbreak that raised many flags became one of the worst public health catastrophes in memory. Now, there are hundreds of individuals facing months or years of treatment.

It was the fungal meningitis outbreak that promoted the ISMP to find out if the proper management of high-risk compounded drugs was as widespread as they believed.

Unfortunately, they found that the answer is yes.

Pharmacists, pharmacy techs, nurses, and doctors were polled in November and December 2012. The poll had an emphasis on managing CSPs, which are made by compounding pharmacies or on-site.

Injectable drugs that are sterile are quite difficult to create because they require mixing drugs that are not sterile with other ingredients. These other ingredients must remain sterilized to ensure no mold, bacteria, or fungi makes its way into the final product.

The poll showed that there may be problems in a number of places. 11 percent of pharmacists and 29 percent of techs who participated believed that they had on-site contamination of CSPs in 2011. The poll did not specify whether or not it was believed the contamination was detected before the drugs were distributed or if those contaminated drugs were given to patients. It was also not clear as to whether or not the problems had been reported.

Fifty percent of pharmacists believed that no contamination had occurred on their watch, but only 38 percent of pharmacy techs felt that no contamination had occurred while they were on the job. However, the reason why most pharmacists felt that no contamination occurred on their watch was because many of the high-risk CSPs were not compounded on-site.

This poll is just one more indicator that there are serious problems that involve the contamination of sterile drugs. And even though the FDA recommended changes in the way compounding pharmacies are regulated, it is important for consumers to understand that injectable drugs that are touted as sterile are still risky.

If you have contracted meningitis after being exposed to an unsterile drug, you may be eligible for compensation. Contact a Minneapolis injury lawyer from TSR Injury today for your free consultation.

TSR injury Law represents victims of the salmonella food poisoning outbreak which occurred at Great Moon Buffet located on Robert Street in St. Paul. This outbreak occurred in late June 2018 and sickened numerous persons. If you or a loved one were a victim of this food poisoning outbreak or any other outbreak, it is TSR Time! Call a Bloomington personal injury lawyer at our firm today at (612) TSR-TIME.

What is Salmonella?

Salmonella is a bacteria that makes people sick. It was discovered by an American scientist named Dr. Salmon, and has been known to cause illness for over 125 years. The illness people get from a Salmonella infection is called salmonellosis.

Most people infected with Salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps between 12 and 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days, and most individuals recover without treatment. In some cases, diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. In these patients, the Salmonella infection may spread from the intestines to the blood stream, and then to other body sites. In these cases, Salmonella can cause death unless the person is treated promptly with antibiotics. The elderly, infants, and those with impaired immune systems are more likely to have a severe illness.

How Common is Salmonella Infection?

CDC estimates Salmonella causes about 1.2 million illnesses, 23,000 hospitalizations, and 450 deaths in the United States every year.2 Among these illnesses, about 1.1 million are acquired in the United States. Among the illnesses acquired in the United States, CDC estimates that food is the source for about 1 million illnesses, 19,000 hospitalizations, and 380 deaths.

News Release
Minnesota Firm Recalls Ground Beef Products Due To Possible E. Coli O157:H7 Contamination
Class I Recall 082-2014
Health Risk: High Nov 22, 2014
Congressional and Public Affairs
Benjamin Bell
(202) 720-9113

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22, 2014 – Ranchers Legacy Meat Co., of Vadnais Heights, Minn., is recalling 1,200 pounds of ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

Products subject to the recall are packaged in plastic cryovac sealed packets, and contain various weights of ground beef. All products produced on Nov. 19, 2014 are subject to recall.

All of the following have a Package Code (use by) 12/10/2014 and bear the establishment number “Est. 40264” inside the USDA mark of inspection. Individual products include:

• Ranchers Legacy Ground Beef Patties 77/23
• Ranchers Legacy Ground Chuck Patties 80/20
• Ranchers Legacy USDA Choice Ground Beef 80/20
• Ranchers Legacy USDA Choice WD Beef Patties 80/20
• Ranchers Legacy RD Beef Patties 80/20
• OTG Manufacturing Chuck/Brisket RD Patties
• Ranchers Legacy Chuck Blend Oval Beef Patties
• Ranchers Legacy WD Chuck Blend Patties
• Ranchers Legacy USDA Choice NAT Beef Patties 80/20
• Ranchers Legacy NAT Beef Patties 80/20
• Ranchers Legacy USDA Choice NAT Beef Patties 80/20
• Ranchers Legacy Ground Chuck Blend
• Ranchers Legacy Chuck Blend Bulk Pack NAT Patties
• Ranchers Legacy Chuck Blend NAT Beef Patties

The product was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel during a routine inspection. Products testing positive on November 21, 2014 were held at the establishment. The products being recalled were produced on the same day and equipment as the positive product. Products were shipped to distributors for sales nationwide.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2–8 days (3–4 days, on average) after exposure the organism. While most people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can occur among persons of any age but is most common in children under 5-years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor, and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers’ freezers. FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef that has been cooked to a temperature of 160 ° F. The only way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature.

Consumers and media with questions regarding the recall should call Jeremy Turnquist, Vice President of Operations for Ranchers Legacy Meat Co. at (651) 366-6575.

Read Press Release

Minnesota is a beautiful state to go hunting in during the fall, so the woods are filled with hunters attaching deer stands to trees. Deer stands are an effective way to blend into the surroundings, while also receiving a bird’s eye view of the surrounding woods so that deer can be easily seen and the kill shot can be easily achieved.

Unfortunately, some deer stands are the subjects of faulty manufacturing, which means that they can malfunction while they are in use. If the safety harness breaks or it comes loose, head injuries, paralysis, and even death can occur from the fall. If that has happened to you, you need a Minneapolis product liability lawyer to pursue compensation for you.

Deer Stand Defects

We have represented hunters who have been involved in deer stand accidents that have been the result of device failure. This failure is in regards to poor design or manufacturing defects. There are other instances in which the design was not the issue. Instead, the poor quality materials led to the accident. We make sure that manufacturers are held accountable when they use shortcuts to get a product on the market as soon as possible.

Improper warnings and instructions can also be responsible for accidents. The stand may be made out of solid materials and it may even be designed carefully, but the manufacturer has a duty to provide users with instructions that are written carefully and accurately. If the instructions do not clearly state how the deer stand needs to be set up, then the manufacturer can be held responsible for an accident. Not even stating the hazards associated with the assembly or use of the stand is also a liability for the manufacturer.

Compensation For Injuries

When you contact us, we will have a Minnesota deer stand defect lawyer from our firm evaluate the details of your case. The type of defect, the cause, and all details will be reviewed to determine what kind of angle must be taken to hold the manufacturer accountable. As for the compensation that we pursue, you can seek compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, loss of quality of life, childcare expenses if you are unable to take care of your children on your own, and compensation for other expenses that may be the direct result of the accident caused by the defective deer stand.

Contact A Minneapolis Deer Stand Defect Lawyer

If you or a loved one has been injured due to a deer stand malfunction, you may have a case. It is very important to call us as soon as possible so we can begin investigating the details of your accident and build a solid case for you. To get started, call us at (612) TSR-TIME, or fill out our contact form and schedule a free case evaluation so we can inform you of your options and the rights you have to seek compensation in your case.

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.

A day care provider is being sued for the death of a baby that was in her care.

The wrongful death lawsuit filed by the parents of the baby states that the provider was negligent and that is what led to the baby’s death.

Last February, Grant Maloney, three-months old, died while he was sleeping at his Elko day care. His death was due to asphyxiation that resulted from him rolling over onto a small pillow and this has led to the parents alleging in their suit that their son was provided a poor sleeping environment by provider Karen P. Johnson.

The suit states that Johnson violated safe sleep practices and state law when she propped up the baby with a travel-size pillow. At the time she propped the baby with the pillow, he was swaddled in a blanket. When he rolled over, he rolled onto his face, unable to change position, and died from asphyxiation.

The lawsuit further states that Johnson was negligent and breached the standard of care, thus she created a treacherous sleep environment for the baby. Susan Maloney, the mother of baby Grant, says that she is suing on behalf of her; her husband, Russell Maloney; and the rest of their family.

Johnson has not returned calls from media seeking comment and her attorney has not issued any statements.

Grant Maloney’s death is just one of eight that have occurred within Minnesota day cares this year. All eight of these deaths occurred at in-home facilities. Earlier this month, a state panel performed a review of the child-care deaths that have occurred over the past ten years and made a series of safety recommendations based on what they found.

In the report, they stated that ¾ of the 86 deaths that have occurred in the past 10 years involved infants that were sleeping. The reasons why these infants passed away in their sleep had to do with day care providers not following safety standards.

As of now, Johnson’s day care license has been revoked by the state and she is appealing that revocation. The revocation order was issued in June and said that Johnson had not followed the sleep training guidelines she had been trained to adhere to. The guidelines state that placing a swaddled baby with a pillow is a safety violation.

So far, the Maloney family has reached a partial settlement with one of the insurance companies that insures Johnson.

Judith Henderson, a Golden Valley psychologist, has given up her license to practice after being accused of taking a patient shopping, traveling, dining, and theater excursions then billing the activities as therapy.

The Minnesota Board of Psychology says the 68-year-old charged more than $300,000 in fees to the patient over 10 years. Henderson does not admit or deny the allegations, but agreed to give up her license.

Ms. Henderson violated her professional relationship with the patient, the board stated, by extravagant socializing and then billing it as therapy. She allowed, and possibly encouraged, an inappropriate dependence by the patient.

Medical malpractice and abuse can take many forms. This abuse is unconscionable. It is taking advantage of a trusting, emotionally compromised person. The Minneapolis medical malpractice attorneys of TSR Injury Law are skilled, aggressive litigators with years of experience in personal injury law. Our partners are consistently named Super Lawyers. We will help you evaluate your case and fight for justice. Call (612) TSR-TIME or submit our free consultation form.

Toyota — the company that stood for quality — the company that could do no wrong — has major problems. Their seemingly invincible reputation is at stake. Xinhus News agency reported Saturday that Toyota of Japan has issued a mandatory recall of 270,000 units of its third-generation (2010) Prius hybrid car. It has officially been recalled in the United States now. The Lexus HS 250h is included in this recall because it has a similar component design to the 2010 Prius.

There have been more than 100 complaints and 4 accidents related to Toyota Prius brake failure. Toyota has admitted to a design failure in the anti-lock braking system. The brakes were designed to prevent skidding. Now the company is on a skid, with no end in sight.

Call (612) TSR-TIME for help today.

Toyota Prius Problems

Many 2010 Prius owners have reported that the brakes do not consistently engage when the brake pedal is pressed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is assessing the scope of the problem. The NHTSA will look into reported momentary loss of braking capabilities.

The investigation comes as safety questions surround Toyota, which has already issued broad recalls for millions of its best-selling vehicles, including the Corolla and Camry, initially labeling the problem as being with the floor mats moving forward to press on the accelerator pedal. Ultimately, the recall was due to a design flaw with the gas pedal that allowed friction to build and the pedal to become stuck.

Toyota said it would unveil safety measures relating to the Prius brakes as soon as a new design is available. Most auto and safety experts are questioning Toyota’s integrity. They feel that Toyota has not disclosed the full extent of its safety flaws.

Toyota Recall Lawyers

Having a recall on your car is unnerving. It can undermine your confidence in the integrity of your vehicle. It may even change the way you live and drive — making you stay home more often, making you drive more tentatively, and even altering how you react in a crash-avoidance maneuver.

We want to help you in your fight for justice with the Toyota design defect, especially if the design defect led to a car accident. Call (612) TSR-TIME.