Category Archives: Personal Injury

Consumer Expectation Test, Consumer products, CPSC, Defective Products, Failure to warn, Jury selection, Litigation, Personal Injury, Product Liability, Strict liability, Trials

The Single Test for Product Liability in Oregon

Olson Brooksby Has Extensive Experience With Product Liability Work in Oregon

Olson Brooksby defends product liability (including consumer products regulated by the CPSC such as lead toys and non-consumer products such as aircraft) and personal injury cases, with an emphasis on the defense of high exposure cases.

Both Kristin Olson and Scott Brooksby have tried product liability cases to verdict.  Their product liability practice includes, but is not limited to: aviation (aircraft and components), heavy equipment (including tractors, forklifts, loaders, logging equipment, and scissor-lifts), and industrial equipment used in the fabrication of raw steel and metals (including rollers, punch-presses, laser torches and other sample burners and test equipment).

Kristin Olson and Scott Brooksby also have experience with the following kinds of cases:

– Aviation, aircraft and their component parts.

– Paints, solvents, coatings, detergents, and pesticides, including benzene and toluene cases which resulted in liver and kidney transplants.

– Toys and recreational products, including paint ball guns, toys containing battery fire hazards, pogo sticks, pools, lead toys imported from India that were swallowed by children, toys allegedly containing lead paint, and inflatable and other recreational towables pulled behind boats.

– Tempered glass and conventional glass.

– Foreign objects or other alleged dangerous defects in food and drink products and packaging.

– Drug and medical device cases, including fraudulent vitamins and device replacements for hips, knees, ray cages and pedicle screws.

– Home appliance cases involving allegedly defective washers, dryers, stoves, heaters and heating equipment, green technology, and water heaters.

– Chemicals that resulted in a fatal automobile fire, burning a family of five, including fatal burns to two children.

The Consumer Expectation Test

Three types of product defects are recognized in Oregon: design defects, manufacturing defects, or failure to warn.  In any of these cases, to prevail on a product liability claim, the plaintiff must prove that the product was unreasonably dangerous.  In design defect cases, risk-utility proof is not required to make a prima facie case.

Although Kristin Olson and Scott Brooksby have defended cases involving countless different types of consumer and other products, the test for liability in each case in Oregon is “the consumer expectation test” and this test is always the same.  It applies regardless of whether the case is a negligence case or a strict liability action.

Under the consumer expectation test, the question is whether the product was “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.”  McCathern v. Toyota Motor Corp., 332 Or 59, 77 (2001) (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §402A comment I (1979)).  The plaintiff has the burden of proving that a product is unreasonably dangerous.

The consumer expectation test is objective.  Jurors may not consider their own personal subjective views as to whether the product contained conditions that they themselves would expect.  Similarly, they may not put themselves in the position of the injured plaintiff to make such a determination, but must apply the views of the community as a whole.  The McCathern decision also made clear that the consumer expectation test is the only test properly given to the jury in a strict product liability case.  For a good overview of Oregon product liability law, the McCathern decision is worth reading.

Who are Proper Defendants?

Strict tort liability applies to any person engaged in the business of selling or leasing products for use or consumption.  This includes manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, distributors, lessors, or in short, any person in the “stream of commerce”.  For a party to be held strictly liable in tort, that party must have sold or leased a product under the statute.  The Oregon product liability statute, codified at ORS 30.900 et. seq. provides that, “a manufacturer, distributor, seller or lesser of a product” may be subject to an action for a product that is unreasonably dangerous.  The Oregon Legislature did not adopt the caveat to RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §402A caveat 3 (1965), which contains the caveat for component-part manufacturers.  The Oregon
Supreme Court has ruled that component part manufacturers can be subject to strict liability for the sale of defective components.  However, the manufacturer of a component part is not the subject of strict liability if the component was misapplied rather than defectively designed.

Important Considerations When Defending Products Cases in Oregon

One of the most important considerations at trial is jury selection.  What are the perspective jurors’ views of governmental regulation of the product involved and products generally?  Does the jury have preconceived attitudes and experiences that will make them favorable opinion leaders during jury deliberations, or do they have negative attitudes and opinions toward manufacturers or corporations that make them predisposed to award plaintiffs large verdicts no matter what the evidence?

Does one of the many defenses, including statute of limitations, statute of ultimate repose, alteration or unforeseeable misuse or modification apply?  Was the danger of the product so open and obvious, and an alternative unavailable such that the utility and necessity of the product outweighed any danger?  These and many other defense questions will require further analysis well before trial begins, and often before discovery begins.  Disciplined defense strategy formation and execution, exhaustive development of potential defenses, and jury research are all be valuable in attempting to obtain defense or low verdicts.

 

 

 

Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Act, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Consumer products, CPSA, CPSC, Defective Products, Litigation, Manufacturing, Personal Injury, Product Liability, Product recalls

Federal Government Regulation of Consumer Product Safety and Mandatory Reporting of Consumer Product Defects to the CPSC

Olson Brooksby frequently counsels local and national clients on whether or not the consumer products they manufacture or sell contain a safety defect that they would be required to report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Federal Regulation

The Congress of the United States established the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), codified at 15 U.S.C. §§2007-2089.

Complete analysis of the CPSA is beyond the scope of this article.  Pursuant to the CPSA, Congress established the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) to regulate consumer product safety in the United States.  Under the CPSA, the Commission has the power to develop regulations related to the safety of consumer products, which are generally contained in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Under 15 USCS § 2052(5), a “consumer product” means “any article, or component part thereof, produced or distributed (i) for sale to a consumer for use in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise, or (ii) for the personal use, consumption or enjoyment of a consumer in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise…”

Specifically excluded from regulation by the CPSC are tobacco, motor vehicles, pesticides, aircraft and aircraft components, boats, drugs and medical devices and food.  Even if these excluded products are purchased for consumer use, they are not subject to regulation or jurisdiction by the CPSC.   The Commission does tend to heavily regulate consumer products, especially children’s items, such as: car seats, children’s pajamas, strollers, cribs, toys, some recreational products, certain home appliances, and tools.  The CPSC has passed specific regulatory acts such as the “Children’s Flammable Pajamas Act” associated with consumer products that target vulnerable users, primarily children and vulnerable adults.   A link to the CPSC website, which contains useful product safety information, including information for manufacturers such as current product recalls, is found at http://www.cpsc.gov/.

The Requirement of Reporting Consumer Product Defects to the CPSC

Although complete analysis of reporting requirements are beyond the scope of this article, Section 15(b) of the CPSA establishes reporting requirements (“Section 15(b) reports”) for manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers of consumer products.  In summary, each must notify the commission (generally within 24 hours) if they obtain information that “reasonably supports the conclusion” that a product (1) fails to comply with an applicable consumer product safety rule or with a voluntary consumer product safety standard, (2) fails to comply with any other rule, regulation, standard or ban under the CPSA or any other Act enforced by the Commission such as the Children’s Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, Refrigerator Safety Act or Flammable Fabrics Act, (3) contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, or (4) creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death.

Under the CPSA, a private right of action exists for any person injured by violation of a consumer product safety rule promulgated by the Commission.  Manufacturers should be aware that the CPSA contains some sharp teeth and courts may award attorney fees as part of the injured person’s recovery.  15 U.S.C. §2072.  Under the CPSA, the CPSC has broad enforcement powers and a number of tools to ensure the safety of consumer products.  However, under the CPSA, the CPSC is also charged with assisting manufacturers, distributors and retailers of products with known defects in the development of a “Corrective Action Plan” (“CAP”), and although the CPSC enforcement powers have sharp teeth, the CPSC is also focused on working to develop voluntary corrective action plans and engaging in cooperation during corrective action plan implementation.

Olson Brooksby frequently counsels manufacturers on whether to pass along reports they have received or internally-developed information that suggests that a product may contain a defect that would require reporting under Section 15(b) of the CPSA.  While comprehensive analysis of the Section 15(b) reporting requirements are beyond the scope of this article, the Commission has published a useful abbreviated publication that discusses reporting and product recalls.

Why Familiarity And Compliance With CPSC Mandatory Reporting Requirements Matters

Although it should go without saying, manufacturers, especially those focused on products for babies, children and household consumers (such as cleaning products, flammable products, etc.), must be aware of whether the Commission is considering or has established specific rules governing their products.  Manufacturers, distributors and retailers should be aware of the basic reporting requirements to the CPSC under Section 15(b) if they become aware of information that reasonably supports the conclusion that their product contains a defect and should voluntarily report.

The Commission has the power to require mandatory recalls, but will typically offer a manufacturer the option of conducting a voluntary recall before issuing a recall order.  Prudent manufacturers of consumer products, especially those for which the Commission has promulgated specific rules or standards, should have a recall plan developed in advance because, whether voluntary or mandatory, the Commission will expect the company to commence the necessary recall action plan quickly and such plans are typically very involved.  Any action taken by the Commission, whether in the form of corrective action or a recall can have serious consequences for manufacturing cycles and the costs associated with a recall can be very high.  For more on this issue, please feel free to contact our office.

 

 

Amputation, Catastrophic Injury, Heavy Equipment Manufacturing, Heavy Machinery, Metal Punch Presses, OSHA, Personal Injury, Product Liability, Steel, Workplace Injuries

Mitigating Risk of Punch Press Amputations

With the incredible advances in safety equipment in and standards, one would think that punch press amputations would be a thing of the past.  However, they still occur today, and manufacturers with press operations need to be vigilant both about their safety equipment and practices, as well as their record-keeping

Extremely large metal punch presses can range in strength from about ten tons to 50,000 tons.  Larger presses that exceed something in the neighborhood of 150 tons can cost into the seven figures and present a tremendous capital investment burden, particularly for the small or mid-size metal component manufacturer.  Because of the incredibly high cost of this equipment, and because of the long life of the equipment and the possibility of retrofitting with modern safety devices, many ultra-heavy-duty punch presses are still in use today.  It is important that older equipment both be retrofitted with modern safety devices that comport with industry standards and that records of safety modifications or changes be maintained.

Scott Brooksby recently defended a mid-sized manufacturer that operated a hydraulic punch press that had been manufactured in approximately 1928 and was acquired by a client in approximately 1979.  After fifty-one years of continuous use, the punch press was still in excellent operating condition.  One day, for reasons that are not completely clear, the press descended and partially amputated the right hand of the manufacturer’s employee.  In the nearly 30 years before this accident, there had never been a single accident reported on the punch press.

These situations are often complicated by the number of, and nature of, control mechanisms, which can include foot pedals, hand pedals, electronic switches, buttons, or pedals that provide for slow “inch mode” movement, etc.  Often different operators will prefer different methods of use.  In this case, the primary operator was stationed at the front of the machine and would activate the press using an inch mode to set dies and then produce product more quickly as the operator at the rear removed and inserted the die in a continuous cyclical fashion, while the front operator operated the machine with a series of hand and foot pedals.

Although the press was originally built some eighty years before the accident, the manufacturer had diligently retrofitted the press with up-to-date safety modification, including 360-degree light curtains.  A commonly relied on safety device, light curtains are designed to stop descention of the press in the event that a hand or any object penetrated the light curtain.  In this case, the light curtains were installed both on the front and rear.  The light curtain appeared to have been interrupted at the time of the accident.  The precise cause of the accident will likely never be known.

After the press was acquired by the manufacturer, some add-ons and wiring and safety modifications were made.  The precise timing of the modifications was unclear.  The press was retrofitted with light curtains which were designed to prevent inch movement when the light curtains were broken. The front and rear light curtains appear to have been installed at different times. At some point prior to the accident, the light curtains were replaced with updated versions.  As part of routine maintenance procedures, the press was fitted with a new brake in 2004 or 2005. The new brake was not a safety add-on. The brakes on the machine were tested immediately after the accident and found in good order.

When the State Occupational Health and Safety Administration investigated, the accident maintenance records could not be located.

There are two important things to learn from this case:

1. Virtually every steel company, metal company, or manufacturer of component parts using these materials will have old (even decades-old) equipment that is working perfectly well and is perfectly safe by modern standards through the addition of retrofitted safety devices.  However, it is critical that such retrofitting be documented and that the documents be retained indefinitely, or maintained in strict compliance with a formal document destruction policy.

2. In most states, the OSHA agency conducting the investigation will want to interview, and will be entitled by statute or regulation to interview, employees involved in the workplace accident outside the presence of counsel, even if counsel has been retained and requested to be present.  This warrants the cost and discipline associated with diligent training.  Management should consider including a training module so that workers who are interviewed outside the presence of counsel focus only on speaking about what they saw, what they said, or what they heard others say, all limited to a first-hand perspective.

 

 

 

Aviation, aviation attorney, aviation attorney, aviation, aviation law, aviation lawyer, aviation law, aviation lawyer, Catastrophic Injury, Helicopters, NTSB, Personal Injury, Uncategorized

NTSB Hearing on Medical Helicopter Crash Considers Pilot Texting Ban

Close up of judge raising gavel in courtroom

The NTSB held a hearing on a fatal medical helicopter crash that took place in 2011.  After finding that smart phone texting was a contributing factor in the fatal crash, the NTSB recently considered a ban on pilot texting.  It is surprising that such a regulation is not already in place or under more serious consideration.  Because there was evidence that the pilot had not been texting during the 19 minutes before the crash, however, the NTSB did not take any formal action on such a ban.

This is part of a larger issue that demands attention — the egregiously high incidence of fatal and critical Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) crashes, and resulting personal injuries.

Olson Brooksby practices a wide variety of aviation law.  We have experience representing airlines, aviation insurers, aviation product manufacturers, and airplane owners.  Our attorneys have handled a broad variety of aviation law matters, including personal injury defense; product liability defense litigation; contract and lease drafting; contract negotiation and disputes; and general aviation commercial litigation.

Much of the firm’s practice is devoted to aviation law, and we are one of the few firms in Oregon with aviation trial experience.  Scott Brooksby leads our aviation practice, devoting a substantial amount of his time and practice to aviation-related matters.  Scott served as local counsel for one of the largest aviation manufacturers in the world in a nine-week trial in Oregon state court.  The trial involved product liability issues and concerned a helicopter crash that resulted in burns, permanent injuries, and multiple deaths.  Mr. Brooksby is on the aviation subcommittee of the American Bar Association’s Mass Torts section.  Mr. Brooksby has also been featured as a speaker and a moderator at the American Bar Association’s Aviation Litigation National Institute in New York, New York.

Catastrophic Injury, Head Injuries, Heavy Equipment Manufacturing, Heavy Machinery, OSHA, Personal Injury, Quality control testing, Steel, Temporary Workers, Workplace Injuries

Assess Steel Quality Control Testing For Potential of Personal Injury

Despite the recent domestic economic downturn, global demand for steel, other metals and heavy equipment continues to increase in emerging markets and elsewhere.  With the increasing demand for production, a potential source of personal injury that is often overlooked is quality control testing.  Manufacturers face pressures to produce, poor communication with and between workers, and what can sometimes be decades-old equipment.  This equipment has usually been continuously retrofitted and appears to function perfectly well, but that is not always the case and serious injury can occur during secondary procedures.

For example, Scott Brooksby defended a steel mill against the claim of a temporary worker who was subject to injury when he was struck in the head by a tail sample cut during sample burning operations.  During steel production, tail samples are typically cut from sheet steel.  At temperatures approaching 1300 degrees, the tails, which vary in size, are routed on a conveyor system into a sample burning room so that samples can be taken for routing to the laboratory to conduct tensile, radiographic and other quality control tests.  The conveyor system is a series of metal rollers controlled by a series of steel gates that regulate the tail samples so that they do not collide and cartwheel into the air or fall from the conveyor, posing a danger to workers.

In Scott Brooksby’s case, a steel tail approximately 8 feet long and 1.5 inches thick was cut from a sheet in the main production roller room.  At approximately 1350 degrees Fahrenheit, the sample, which approached 500 pounds, was routed into the sample burner room.  Sample burning and many other quality control processes may take place in smaller rooms adjacent to the main production halls.  The sample tail is diverted from the main hall after being cut from sheet steel via a steel roller conveyor system where it would pass through a series of gates controlled either electronically or by a set of foot or hand pedals.  By the time the eight foot sample reaches the penultimate steel gate it has cooled to approximately 1,000 degrees.  Theoretically, after passage through the final gate, the section is cut into smaller lengths, approximately 18-21 inches long, which can be used to stretch and test tensile strength or other quality control issues.

On this particular day, the final gate, at the sample burner itself (which is a laser torch used to cut the 18-21 inch tails), jammed shut just as the penultimate gate opened, allowing the eight-foot section to roll down the conveyor.  The section collided with the sample still clutched by the final sample burner gate and cartwheeled into the air, striking one of the two operators in the head and causing injury before falling and smashing the electronic control system.  The injured worker’s co-worker was able to deactivate further sample conveyance through use of a retrofitted electronic emergency estop.  The steel mill processed approximately 30,000 samples per year and the age of the conveyor system was unknown, but believed to be in excess of 40 years old.

Such cases can be important reminders that the original testing equipment may function perfectly well, but may be retrofitted with any number of safety devices.  It is critical that the documentation, if available on older machinery, be preserved and that any maintenance records, including the addition of such safety features as light curtains (which did not exist at the time older, but still functional equipment was manufactured).  If a steel or metal mill, foundry, or component manufacturer is operating older equipment, it may be prudent to do a safety engineering study on machinery such as sample burners that exist in virtually every steel mill to determine whether retrofitting available safety devices is an option.  For example, with the conventional sample burning conveyor system, it may be that the equipment is custom designed and custom safety add-ons such as horizontal spacers can be welded or bolted across the top of the conveyor at sufficient intervals so that the potential for a sample tail to cart wheel off the conveyor becomes impossible because any vertical force is arrested inches above the conveyor rollers.

If manufacturers have questions about the adequacy of the retrofitting of safety devices on older equipment, they should consider contacting the workplace safety regulatory agency in their state.  In some states, OSHA will work with companies and may even provide free safety audits during which the party requesting the audit is granted a period of immunity to correct safety violations that are discovered.  Manufacturers should check with their state safety agencies to determine whether such programs are available and should be sure to determine whether immunity from citation is provided in exchange for the voluntary request for inspection.

The additional safety precautions are particularly important in quality control test facilities such as the sample burning room where often less-experienced workers, or temporary workers who may not be sufficiently trained or conscious of the dangers, begin work.

Recall also that any such serious injury must generally be reported to OSHA immediately and certainly within 24 hours.  In such cases OSHA investigators may also appear at the premises unannounced and, in most states, there is no right to have counsel present when OSHA is conducting its initial interviews with employees, so management should consider a plan for unplanned requests for interviews from safety investigators and ensure that employees are instructed in advance to focus on only what they actually saw, heard, or said during such interviews.

Consumer Expectation Test, Litigation, Negligence, Personal Injury, Product Liability

Product Liability Claim Shape-Shifting: Harmonizing Your Defense When The Consumer Expectation Test and a Negligence Claim are Both in Play

As a firm that limits its practice primarily to aviation, product liability and high exposure negligence cases, Olson Brooksby is well aware of the many pleading traps in cases that involve both claims for strict products liability and negligence cases.  Oregon abolished the alternative “reasonable manufacturer” test more than 20 years ago and now the only proper jury instruction in a product liability case is the consumer expectation test.  In many product liability defense cases, counsel representing the product manufacturer, seller or distributor must harmonize the consumer expectation test with the so-called Fazzolari trilogy of cases in negligence cases.  Fazzolari v. Portland School District 1J, 303 Or 1 (1987) followed a series of legislative tort reforms in product liability cases and to some extent is considered by many to be the appellate courts’ response to the perceived overuse of the terms duty and breach.

The Fazzolari trilogy, held that, in Oregon, the general standard for negligence claims, including those in product liability cases, will be whether or not the dangerous defect (whether based on design, manufacturing, or warning) is reasonably foreseeable and caused harm to a protected interest of the plaintiff.  ORS 30.900 et seq.  In negligence cases, however, when there is a special relationship, such as teacher/student or fiduciary, then the general principles of foreseeability do not apply and the case reverts back to the traditional concepts of duty, breach, causation and damages.  In product liability cases, the harmonizing of these tests is critical.

The Consumer Expectation Test

Oregon is a consumer expectation test state.  The consumer expectation jury instruction is the only proper jury instruction for liability based on strict product liability in Oregon.  Under the consumer expectation test, the product must be “unreasonably dangerous” to be defective in a strict liability case.  Oregon law provides that, whether pleaded as a negligence theory or as strict liability, the case will still be governed as a product liability action.  Three types of defects are recognized: design defects, manufacturing defects, or failure to warn.

In design defect cases, risk-utility proof is not required to make a prima facie case.  To prevail on a product liability claim, the plaintiff must prove that the product was unreasonably dangerous.  In order to determine whether a product is “unreasonably dangerous” under Oregon law, the jury is instructed to apply the consumer expectation test.  Although there are thousands of products that may be the subject of a product liability action under a theory of strict liability of negligence, the plaintiff must prove, and the consumer expectation test provides, that the test is whether the product was “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.”  McCathern v. Toyota Motor Corp., 332 Or 59, 77 (2001) (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §402A comment I (1979)).

The consumer expectation test is objective as applied.  Jurors may not use their own personal subjective views of whether or not the product contained conditions that they themselves would expect.  Similarly, they may not put themselves in the position of the injured plaintiff to make such a determination, but must apply the views of the community as a whole.  The McCathern decision also made clear that the consumer expectation test is the only test properly given to the jury in a strict product liability test.  For a good overview of Oregon product liability law, the McCathern decision is worth reading.  Oregon’s product liability statute is contained in ORS 30.900 et. seq.

The Negligence Claim

An understanding of negligence law in Oregon requires a brief discussion of pre- and post-1987 common law decisions.  Prior to 1987, Oregon generally held to a conventional approach to negligence cases, requiring the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages.  However, since the cases decided in the period around 1987, common law negligence in Oregon now depends on whether the defendant’s conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff.

This change from the strict adherence to the traditional common law elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages was a result of the Oregon appellate courts’ perceived overuse of the cliché “duty” or “no duty.”  Oregon courts, therefore, began to encourage juries and judges to decide each case on its own facts.  Duty continues to play an affirmative role when the parties invoke a particular status, relationship or standard of conduct beyond the standards generated by common law.  This was the result of the so-called Fazzolari principle, which now governs negligence law in Oregon.  See Fazzolari v. Portland School District 1J, 303 Or 1 (1987).

Fazzolari typically requires a three part test:

  1. Determine whether a particular status or relationship exists;
  2. If so, analyze that status, relationship, or standard to determine whether a “duty” beyond that of ordinary care exists;
  3. If such a standard, status or relationship is not alleged, then analyze the case under principles of general negligence based on foreseeability of risk of harm.

Typically, the kinds of relationships that invoke a duty beyond that of ordinary care are found in fiduciary duty cases or in cases where the parties have a particular contract or status.  The duty beyond that of ordinary care could also be invoked under a particular statute or rule.  If there is a special relationship, then the rule of general foreseeability does not apply.  Rather, if a special relationship exists, then the plaintiff can argue that the defendant had a duty beyond that of ordinary care.  Based on the limited information available to date, we do not see anything in the facts of this case that would suggest a special relationship between Cadet and the Huo family that would require a duty beyond that of ordinary care.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Oregon is a physical impact state as it relates to pursuit of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).  Oregon subscribes to the physical-impact rule, meaning that damages arising from purely emotional or psychological upset (that is, NIED) are not typically recoverable for a defendant’s unreasonable actions or failure to act unless there is an accompanying physical impact to the party seeking relief, no matter how slight.  In any case where a plaintiff is seriously injured, and there is also an injury to a spouse or close family member, the court and jury would almost certainly find (and it would likely be reversible error to not so find) that there was an accompanying physical impact as a result of plaintiff’s injuries.   However, a plaintiff may also simply allege a claim for noneconomic damages incorporating the alleged NIED claim as part of the negligence claim.

Aviation, aviation attorney, aviation attorney, aviation, aviation law, aviation lawyer, aviation law, aviation lawyer, Catastrophic Injury, Helicopters, Personal Injury, Product Liability, Uncategorized

Helicopter Crashes in Helicopter Air Medical Operations

People are surprised to learn that helicopter crashes are more prevalent in Helicopter Air Medical Operations.  Generally, the statistical number of incidents of injury, accident or death in 14 C.F.R.§ 121 (known as “Part 121”, or commercial passenger aviation) operations are incredibly low.  There are more serious injuries and deaths resulting from helicopter air medical operations.

For example, in 2010, according to the NTSB (which is charged with investigating every aviation accident in the United States, and many abroad), there were no fatalities in any of the Part 121 accidents in 2010.  This despite some 17.5 million Part 121 flight hours.  Of all of the Part 121 flight hours in 2010, the most common defining event was a turbulence encounter, accounting for 26% of all Part 121 accidents in 2010.

Most of the defining events for Part 121 accidents in 2010 (just as they have been in general for the last 10 years) were events such as ground collisions, ground handling, runway incursion, cabin safety, system failure, bird strikes etc., many or most of which are ground events.  More than half of the Part 121 accidents that occurred in 2010 occurred during takeoff or landing (according to NTSB data, this is generally true of Part 121 accidents every year).  Less than half of Part 121 accidents in 2010 happened en route.  However, the major factor in Part 121 accidents is turbulence (even though, as a cumulative total, there are more incidents during takeoff and landing than there are en route).  En route, turbulence is the biggest factor in accidents because commercial airlines fly at multiples of the altitude that, for example, helicopters do.

Given the relative flying altitudes, flight durations, weather events, cruise speeds etc., involved in Part 121 operations, turbulence, as it is understood in Part 121 accidents, does not have anything to do with the relatively high incidents involved in helicopter air medical operations or helicopter accidents in general.

Interestingly, according to NTSB data, most helicopter air medical operations involving fatalities do not occur when patients are being transported.  Rather, most occur when helicopters are en route to get patients or when they are transporting organs.  The inference to be drawn is that, while helicopters have great pilots, those pilots are taking chances while flying that they do not take when a patient is on board.

Air medical operations are conducted under both Part 135 and Part 91, depending on whether patients are being carried on board the aircraft.  Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (“HEMS”) missions en route to collect patients, or organs, or to reposition aircraft after accomplishing patient transport operations, are generally conducted under Part 91.  Trips conducted to transport patients or organs on board are conducted under Part 135.  Some air medical helicopter operations, particularly for emergency medical services are conducted by state or local government entities as public use flights, whether patients are on board or not.

Although fixed-wing aircraft are also used for Part 91 and Part 135 medical missions, there were only 10 fixed wing fatalities in air medical operations during the entire decade between 2000 and 2009.

A Statistical Overview of HEMS Accident Frequency and Type

HEMS accounted for about 80 percent of all air medical accidents during the ten-year period 2001-2010.  Against this backdrop, we examine HEMS accidents, where in 2010 alone, there were 13 Helicopter Emergency Medicine Accidents (“HEMS”), 7 of which were fatal.  http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2012/ARA1201.pdf (at page 2)  Six of the Seven HEMS fatalities in 2010 involved operations under Part 91.  From 200 through 2010 (the most recent year NTSB statistics are available), 33 percent of HEMS accidents were fatal.  Most HEMS accidents occurred during airborne phases of flight and during 2010, all HEMS fatalities occurred during airborne phases of flight.

Obviously this is explained in part by the fact that unlike fixed-wing air medical operations, HEMS do not generally operate out of establish aerodromes.  Instead, they operate out of off-airport locations where patients are in need of timely, critical care.  In every year except 2007, the number of Part 91 air medical helicopter accidents without patients aboard have been significantly higher than any other category of air medical flying.  http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/ARA1101.pdf (at page 23)

It may be useful to breakdown the 31 accidents involving 32 helicopters in air medical operations between 2007-2009.  Eighteen were being operated under Part 91, 13 were conducted under Part 135, and one was conducted as a public use flight.  Eleven of the accidents, involving 12 helicopters, were fatal.  Collision with objects on takeoff or landing accounted for 7 of the 31 accidents, but no fatalities.  On the other hand, four of the five controlled flight into terrain accidents were fatal, including the crash of the Maryland State Police Public use flight carrying accident victims on approach to Andrews Air Force Base.  Two of the three loss of control in-flight accidents were fatal, as were two of the three unintended flights into instrument meteorological conditions accidents.  The midair collision between two HEMS helicopters conducting Part 135 operations in Flagstaff, Arizona, in June 2008 was also fatal to all on board.  The other two fatalities involving a non-power plant system were coded as other.  http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/ARA1101.pdf (at page 24)

What Are The Typical Causes?

In any aviation operation, pilot training and experience, and pilot judgment are some of the most important factors in safe flight.  With helicopter operations generally, and particularly HEMS operations, pilot experience, training and judgment are even more critical because of the conditions they fly in, such as bad weather, night, rural areas where wires or other low strike points may not be lighted or marked and air-traffic may be uncontrolled.  HEMS operations also face an unparalleled need for speed to save lives.  Review of individual NTSB probably cause reports, NTSB factual data and other aviation industry data would tend to suggest that fatal and serious injury helicopter accidents are most often the result of a number of factors including loss of control, visibility issues, wired strikes, system component failure or post-impact fire.  Although some of these issues pose dangers during Part 121 operations, they simply do not pose the same risks, largely due to obvious differences in the nature of the aviation operation, the equipment, altitude, avionics, take-off and landings from tightly controlled air-space and the use of aerodromes.  In addition, HEMS operations often involve situations in which minutes may literally save life and limb, prompting hurried behavior.  While that is not to suggest that HEMS pilots are not some of the best helicopter pilots flying, they do face particular challenges, to which Part 121 pilots or even fixed-wing air medical operations pilots are less exposed.

There are also tremendous swings in helicopter air medical pilot training.  From 2007-2009, for example, NTSB data suggest that the accident helicopter pilots’ median age was 54, ranging from 35 to 69.  Median total flight hours were 7,125 with a range from 2,685 to 18,000.  The median time in the type of accident helicopter was 375 hours, ranging from 11 to 4,241.  Statistics suggest that such variations in flight time and the corollary impact on experience and judgment may be significant factors in the number of crashes. http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/ARA1101.pdf (at page 26).  HEMS operations more often than not must use unimproved landing sites at accident scenes and helipads and hospitals or medical facilities.  Loss of control in flight was the most common event for both fatal and non-fatal helicopter crashes, followed by collisions on takeoff or landing and system component failure of the power plant.

Even though HEMS pilots may have thousands of flight hours, and are unquestionably some of the best helicopter pilots in the world, owners and operators of HEMS operations should continuously emphasize the consistent causes of HEMS crashes and adapt training programs to focus on those causes.

Olson Brooksby has an active aviation accident and aviation component product liability defense practice.  For more information, please contact our office.

 

 

Aviation, aviation attorney, aviation attorney, aviation, aviation law, aviation lawyer, aviation law, aviation lawyer, DSM-5, Experts, Litigation, MMPI, Personal Injury, PTSD, TSI

Strategies for companies defending against claims for PTSD

Most plaintiff and defense attorneys would likely admit that treatment of forensic psychological experts and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) claims on behalf of their respective clients is difficult.  For the defense of a personal injury claim involving PTSD, it is essential that defense counsel have a thorough understanding of the interaction between the DSM-5, standardized testing, how the testing was scored, whether the tests administered had validity scales, and what other personal historical factors and information the plaintiff’s examining physician had available to him or her.  It is also important to determine whether the plaintiff’s expert considered other mental diseases or defects besides PTSD.  All of this is necessary for thorough cross-examination of a plaintiff’s expert and attacking misdiagnosed claims of PTSD.

There is no single test that will clinically establish the presence of PTSD.  Typically a number of tests such as the MMPI, the TSI or other standardized tests are administered.  Defense counsel should understand whether there are validity scales and what they show and be prepared to cross-examine the plaintiff’s expert in that regard.

Defense counsel should also cross-examine the plaintiff’s expert on his or her awareness of recent longitudinal studies done on PTSD  Defense counsel must determine whether the plaintiff’s expert is an experienced clinician.  What clinical judgment did the plaintiff’s expert apply to reach his or her diagnosis?  Did the plaintiff’s expert account for malingering?  If so, how?

Defense counsel should also cross-examine the plaintiff’s expert extensively on key diagnostic criteria such as “life-threatening” and “persistence”.

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) (DSM-IV-TR Code 309.81) is categorized by the DSM-IV(TR) as an Anxiety Disorder.

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) will be included in a new chapter in DSM-5 on Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorders. This move from DSM-IV, which addressed PTSD as an anxiety disorder, is among several changes approved for this condition that is increasingly at the center of public as well as professional discussion.
The

“The essential feature of PTSD is the development of characteristic symptoms following exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one’s physical integrity; or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of another person, or learning about unexpected or violent death, serious harm, or threat of death or injury experienced by a family member or other close associate.”  DSM-IV-TR at p. 463.

The response to the event must involve intense fear, helplessness, or horror.  In children, the response must involve disorganized or agitated behavior.  Characteristic symptoms include persistent re-experiencing of the traumatic event, persistence of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness and persistent symptoms of increased arousal.  DSM-IV-TR also states that the full symptom picture must be present for more than one month and the disturbance must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

A nonexclusive list of traumatic events that are experienced directly include military combat, violent personal assault (sexual assault, physical attack, robbery, mugging), being kidnapped, begin taken hostage, terrorist attack, torture, incarceration as a prisoner of war or in a concentration camp, natural or manmade disasters, severe automobile accidents, or being diagnosed with a life-threatening illness.  For children, sexually traumatic events may include developmentally inappropriate sexual experiences without threatened or actual violence  or injury.

An individual will have persistent symptoms of anxiety or increased arousal that were not present before the trauma.  These symptoms may include difficulty falling or staying asleep that may be due to recurrent nightmares during which the traumatic event is relived, hyper-vigilance, and exaggerated startle response.  Some individuals report irritability or outbursts of anger or difficulty concentrating or completing tasks.

Associated Descriptive Features and Mental Disorders 

Part of the difficulty in an accurate diagnosis of PTSD, is that it is associated with many other anxiety and other mental disorders.  PTSD is also associated with increased rates of Major Depressive Disorder, Substance-Related Disorders, Panic disorder, Agoraphobia, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Social Phobia, Specific Phobia, and Bipolar Disorder.  These disorders can either precede, follow, or emerge concurrently with the onset of PTSD.

PTSD Prevalence Rates

The DSM-IV-TR discusses community-based studies which reveal a lifetime prevalence for PTSD of approximately 8% of the adult population in the United States.  Information about general prevalence rates in other countries is not available.   Studies of at-risk individuals yield variable findings, with the highest rates (ranging between one third and more than half of those exposed) found among survivors of rape, military combat and captivity, and ethnically or politically motivated internment and genocide.

Differential Diagnosis

The DSM-IV-TR emphasizes that with PTSD, the stressor must be of an extreme, (i.e., “life-threatening) nature. DSM-IV-TR at p. 467.  In contrast, other mental disorders often mistakenly diagnosed as PTSD include Adjustment Disorder, where the stressor can be of any severity.  The test also points out that not all psychopathology that occurs in individuals exposed to an extreme stressor should necessarily be attributed to PTSD and may be the result of many other mental disorders.  Mentioned are Acute Stress Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Schizophrenia  and other Psychotic Disorders or Mood Disorders with Psychotic Features.  Significantly, the test emphasizes that “[m]alingering should be ruled out in those situations in which financial remuneration, benefit eligibility, and forensic determinations play a role.”  DSM-IV-TR at p. 467.  Although a discussion of all diagnostic criteria is beyond the scope of this article, virtually each of the diagnostic criteria for PTSD emphasize that persistence of the symptoms, the re-experiencing of the event, and the avoidance of associated stimuli is essential.

Conclusion

Even a complete summary of the criteria and methodology for most effectively questioning or attacking a plaintiff’s claim of PTSD is far beyond the scope of this blog post.  Defense counsel must undertake a thorough investigation and consultation with a qualified expert, preferably one who also maintains a clinical practice.  When defense counsel is cross-examining plaintiff’s expert witness regarding a PTSD diagnosis, there is absolutely no substitute for thorough preparation and understanding of the DSM-IV criteria, clinical judgment, test results, current longitudinal or other studies and an awareness of all factors taken into account by plaintiff’s expert as the plain text of the DSM-IV-TR, and examples of the trauma and criteria typically associated with PTSD can often be easily contrasted with the data to disprove or minimize the emotional distress damages.  Olson Brooksby often defends high-exposure personal injury or product liability cases where plaintiffs seek damages for emotional distress and claim PTSD.  For more information, contact our office.