Blog

Winter 2008 Podcast


January 11, 2008
Topic: Ricci~Leopold Podcast

WINTER PODCAST

WELCOME! And Happy New Year.

This is the Ricci~Leopold Winter Podcast for 2008. My name is Spencer Kuvin, a partner at Ricci~Leopold.

In this podcast, I will discuss midsize SUV's which perform worse than cars in some side crash tests. Injuries which may be caused or prevented by belt tension. Cars that don't crash. Finally the US Government intervenes in a case brought by Ricci~Leopold against Guidant Corporation.

MIDSIZE SUV'S PERFORM WORSE THAN CARS IN SOME SIDE CRASH TESTS

Crash tests for 6 sport utility vehicles by the insurance institute for highway safety (IIHS) show frontal crash protection has improved. However, the tests reveal that there are significant differences in how well SUV's protect people in serious side crashes.

In front testing, the Trailblazer is the only one of the six to earn an acceptable rating; all others are in the highest rating of "good." Among the worst performers in the side test are the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Chevrolet Trailblazer, even though both have standard side airbags. IIHS Senior Vice President, David Zuby explains, "the performance of some of these models in the side test was surprising. SUV's should have an advantage in side crashes because the driver and passengers ride higher up than in cars. People often think they are safer in one of these vehicles, but many cars hold up better than some of these midsize SUV's in this test."

The Nissan Pathfinder and Nissan Xterra are rated for good protection in side impacts, but only when they are equipped with optional side airbags. The Toyota 4 Runner, equipped with standard side airbags is rated good, and the Ford Explorer with standard side airbags earns an acceptable rating. However, the Cherokee and Trailblazer earned "marginal" ratings. The Cherokee and Trailblazer have side airbags to protect the heads of occupants but don't have additional sets of airbags to protect front set occupants chests and abdomens.

Standard side airbags are becoming more common across the vehicle fleet, but they are standard in more cars than SUV's. Among 2007 models, 71% of the cars have standard side airbags that protect both the head and chest while such protection is standard in only 48% of SUV's.

INJURIES MAY BE CAUSED OR PREVENTED BY BELT TENSION

The optimal degree of safety from belt tension during a crash impact, or how forcefully a seatbelt should hold one in place, isn't very clear. A shoulder belt has to be tight enough to limit movement. But if it doesn't give somewhat during the crash, the belt itself can injure a person's chest. On the other hand, if too much belt webbing spools out of the retractor, it can compromise effectiveness by allowing belted occupants to move enough to strike hard surfaces inside a vehicle.

The firm of Ricci~Leopold, has represented numerous victims involved in automobile accidents where the seatbelt has been the primary area of concern. These cases can be reviewed on our website and include the Kelly v. Ford/TRW matter where a mother of two was killed when a belt did not release in a rollover; the Kattoura v. Ford case where college students in a Ford Explorer rolled over and caused her untimely death when the seatbelt did not tighten. Finally, the Ruch v. Ford litigation, where a Ford Pick Up truck rolled over causing the untimely death of the driver and passenger when the seatbelts spooled out.

A new Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) study addresses this issue. Researchers compared death rates of belted front seat occupants in head on crashes in cars before and after the models were fitted with force limiters. The death rates were higher in cars with limiters. IIHS Senior Vice President, Joe Nolan, explains "this suggests the devices may be allowing some injuries, even as they prevent others. And it's possible the kinds of injuries the force limiters are preventing aren't as serious or numerous as the ones they are allowing." Whether a force limiter is a safety benefit may depend on the type of crash and its severity. Limiters may prevent injuries in frontal crashes when occupants go directly forward into their airbags. But in angle crashes or frontal impacts that involve much vehicle rotation, there's more burden on the seatbelts to prevent people from hitting steering wheels and dashboards.

Another factor in many of these crashes is increased intrusion into vehicles occupant compartments that reduces the space left for people to move without hitting the vehicle interior.

Nolan pointed out that researchers should look for ways to reduce belt induced injuries, such as going to 4 point seatbelts, instead of the current 3 points, to spread the forces on occupants while still providing a restraint that is tight enough.


CARS THAT DON'T CRASH?

Every year traffic crashes are increasing worldwide. It is vital that in addition to helping to reduce injury when these incidents occur, measures are taken to prevent collisions from happening in the first place.

Mazda Motor Corp has created a safety program that aims to produce cars that do not crash. This involves passive safety that prepares the car for a collision and also a higher level of active safety technology that supports the driver, who is ultimately responsible for safety, with accurate hazard recognition and assessment, handling that matches the driver's intentions, and vehicle dynamics that facilitate easier collision avoidance.

Mazda is also developing comprehensive safety technologies that include the use of information generated by transport infrastructure. The company is pursuing next generation active safety that intergrates the driver, vehicle, and traffic environment with the goal of building cars that are both fun to drive and do not crash.

Advanced recognition and assessment support technology includes:

  • Radar sensors that detect a vehicle approaching from the rear or from blind spots that support safe lane changing.
  • A lower belt line to improve downward visibility ahead of the vehicle to assist the driver when entering narrow roads and during front first parking.


• A pre-crash safety system using a radar sensor to monitor various obstacles in the road ahead.

  • Vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to road communications to enhance communications with other vehicle, pedestrians, and cyclists.

US GOVERNMENT INTERVENES IN QUI TAM ACTION AGAINST GUIDANT CORPORATION


Robert A. Frye, a former sales agent of Indiana based Guidant Corporation, a manufacturer and distributor of implanted medical devices, has brought a Qui Tam action on behalf of the United States Government under the false claims act against the corporate giant. A Qui Tam action is one that allows a private citizen to bring suit against an individual or corporation that may be defrauding or cheating the U. S. Government out of money.

Mr. Frye claims that Guidant engaged in a systematic scheme since 1981 which caused the U.S. Department of Health of Human Services, the Healthcare Finance Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to pay inflated reimbursements to various hospitals for replacement devices. These medical devices are sold to government hospitals, such as V. A. Hospitals, not for profit hospitals and investor owned hospitals. Cardiologists, vascular surgeons and eletrophysiologists implant these medical devices at hospital facilities. The cost of these devices and replacements is generally paid for by the purchasing hospital and reimbursed by the U.S. Government agencies pursuant to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The U.S. market for these such devices is in excess of 10.3 billion dollars.

Mr. Frye was employed by Guidant from April of 1981 until March 1997. He alleges that the corporation, which also operated in Texas, systematically and fraudulently concealed from healthcare providers the existence of rights to certain refund credits on its products and that such concealment caused healthcare providers to seek and obtain reimbursement from the Federal and State governments for the full cost of the defendant's products without reduction of the credits that were due.

"Guidant Corporation willfully and intentionally concealed replacement credits and upgrade credits from hospitals and State and Federal agencies and overstated costs over a period of many, many years," said Ted Leopold, Managing Partner at Ricci~Leopold. Mr. Leopold went on to say that "furthermore, we have learned that hospital purchasing departments often were not given an option to substitute other similar, less costly devices for Guidant products." "It is our duty to hold these corporations accountable for their actions, which affect every tax paying citizen in the United States."

Thank you for listening to the Winter 2007 Ricci~Leopold Podcast. My name is Spencer Kuvin, an attorney at Ricci~Leopold. The hiring of an attorney is a serious matter which should not be based solely on advertising. The information contained in this Podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should always contact and consult with your individual attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail.

Attachments:
Ricci-Leopold-Podcast-January-2008.mp3


Subscribe

  • RSS 2.0 Feed
  • My Yahoo!
  • Sub Bloglines
  • MyFeedster
  • newsgator
  • My MSN
What is RSS?

Ricci~Leopold, P.A.: 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 | Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
(561) 684-6500 - Telephone | (800) 699-1914 - Toll Free | (561) 697-2383 - Fax

FirmSite® designed and hosted by Thomson-FindLaw.