DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Personal Injury

Personal Injury

#TRUCKING DANGER: SAY NO TO HB19 & SB17!

By

Republished from Texas Watch www.texaswatch.org

Large truck danger

Year after year, Texas has the highest number of large truck wrecks in the nation. From 2016 to 2019, the number of truck crashes in our state increased by almost 30%. To protect the lives of Texas families, we need more safety measures, not less. Legislation pushed by trucking lobbyists will endanger all of us on the roads.

HB19 and SB17 will harm families devastated by 18-wheeler wrecks. These bills give trucking corporations less incentive to follow safety measures, which means you and your family will be at greater risk on the roads. The bills will make it harder to punish trucking companies through our courts when they violate safety standards. When bad actors do not follow the rules, they need to be held fully accountable by a jury of our peers in order to help protect us all. And when recklessness causes death, serious injuries, or the inability to work, trucking companies must take responsibility.

Please contact your Texas state legislators and let them know you oppose HB19 and SB17!

New Turn for Asbestos Reporting Under TSCA

By

asbestos photo

A court ruling in the final days of 2020 for asbestos reporting under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) may finally steer the EPA’s review of asbestos back in the right direction.

How the incoming Biden Administration responds to these developments will impact whether asbestos is finally labeled a toxin under TSCA and the extent of new asbestos reporting requirements for continued industry use of asbestos.

Background

A 2016 bipartisan amendment to TSCA created an agency review standard that seemed likely to result in asbestos finally being identified by the EPA as a toxin.  However, the EPA under the Trump Administration created a very narrow analysis based on too little information.  Legal challenges to that approach, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic, slowed the final scope and status of the EPA’s asbestos risk analysis. Though the EPA released the first part of its risk evaluation on December 30, 2020, a federal district court decision handed down on December 22, 2020 could force the EPA to drastically change its assessment.    

Court ruling involving asbestos reporting

The federal district court ruling involved two cases – one brought by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) and a second filed by several states attorney generals.  Judge Edward Chen, in his 36-page ruling, found that the asbestos-containing products identified by the agency during the rule making process “appear to be only the tip of the iceberg.” Chen also held that gaps in the agency’s information create risk evaluation models which don’t have the ability to “make accurate assessments that capture all ‘reasonably available’ data.”

The Court ordered the EPA to make significant changes to its TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule to close several loopholes. These include considering more in-depth information about potential uses of asbestos for its risk evaluation.  Judge Chen’s order also addressed closing two additional loopholes:  ending the reporting exemption for products with “impurities” (like asbestos contaminated talc products) and requiring current processors of asbestos products to report those uses. 

What happens next?

Assuming the Biden Administration chooses not to appeal Judge Chen’s order,  the district court’s opinion will require EPA to amend its TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule to require additional asbestos reporting from companies using asbestos and raw material that may be contaminated with asbestos – such as talc-based cosmetics. The data gathered through additional reporting may require the EPA to revise its conclusions or conduct yet another evaluation.  

This will impact not only the EPA’s Part 1 – risk evaluation of current asbestos uses, but Part 2 as well – risk evaluation for legacy uses of asbestos. Safer consumer products and cosmetics could also be the upshot of more stringent asbestos reporting requirements.

Less Traffic, More Fatalities

By

When the Covid-19 pandemic lock down began in earnest March of 2020, streets took on an eerie emptiness rarely seen in the Dallas area. It would seem to be good thing; in fact, there were fewer accidents and you would expect fewer serious personal injuries. However, an interesting statistic emerged that with less traffic, more fatalities happened.

In the four counties of Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, and Denton, there were 72 more fatalities than during the same period in 2019. These totaled 480 deaths from vehicle accidents. Robert Wunderlich with the Texas A&M Transportation Institute said, “It’s a very interesting phenomenon. We were surprised to see that. What you would like to see is a proportional decrease in serious crashes in conjunctions with the decrease in total crashes.”

Less traffic, more fatalities: Why?

A couple of reasons came to the forefront. Speed was number one. With fewer cars on the road, people felt they could exceed the speed limit. Engineers are now studying ways to reduce risks on less congested highways.

Another behavior adding to the deaths is an increased use of alcohol and drugs. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “drug prevalence was high among seriously and fatally injured roadway users before the public health emergency began and was even higher during, especially for alcohol, cannabinoids (active THC), and opioids.” Before the pandemic, 50% of serious or fatal accidents involved these thought-altering substances. Now these account for 65% of serious or fatal accidents.

Are there other factors?

Perhaps not as directly involved with the problem of less traffic, more fatalities, but definitely a contributor, is the condition of streets and roadways throughout the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.

In 2017, Dallas had the 5th highest rate of fatal traffic accidents among the largest 25 cities in the U.S. In addition, it has a backlog of $2 billion in unfunded street improvement needs. Not surprising that so many streets are in disrepair. Also in 2017, Ft. Worth had the 6th highest fatality rate of the same study.

Not only are accidents caused by bad drivers, but by poorly marked lanes, illegible or non-existent signage, pot holes and a myriad of other factors. These are not only an on-site problem, but can damage cars leading to brakes needing repair and other vehicle damage.

In a Dallas City Council traffic safety plan briefing, it was noted that half of the serious accidents in Dallas are on just 8% of the city’s streets. At that meeting, the council endorsed a program called Vision Zero, run by a non-profit group. Its goal is to improve safety on those streets desperately needing attention with the target of zero fatalities.

How to stay safe?

Obviously, first is to be a good driver yourself – no speeding, no thought-altering drugs while driving.

If you live or work in Dallas, there is an interactive map showing street status, planned work, and bond projects. A look at this may help avoid an accident or car repair.

Last, remember to be a defensive driver. A long-remembered line from drivers’ training, “You can be right, dead right as you speed along, but just as dead as if you’d been wrong.”

Stay safe.

Industry Methods of Screening Talc for Asbestos Are Lacking

By

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) found by using electron microscopy, the cosmetic industry methods of screening talc for asbestos are lacking. Of the myriad cosmetics tested by the Scientific Analytical Institute (SAI), nearly 15% showed the presence of asbestos.

Methods of screening talc for asbestos are lacking

Incredibly, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t require testing for asbestos in talc. Though it may be “only” in trace levels there is no safe level of asbestos exposure.

Sean Fitzgerald, who leads the SAI based in Greensboro, NC, said, “It is critical that the FDA develop a rigorous screening method for talc used in personal care products. The lab repeatedly finds asbestos in products made with talc, including cosmetics marketed to children. Last year several children’s cosmetic products at Claire’s and Justice were found to contain asbestos. This includes products beyond cosmetics: children’s toys, crayons, chewing gum, and feminine hygiene as a few samples. It’s outrageous that a precise method for testing personal care products for the presence of asbestos exists, but the cosmetics industry isn’t required to use it.”

Why is asbestos often found in talc?

Rather than perform rigorous testing to verify there is no asbestos, the government promotes careful selection of mines to avoid asbestos contamination.

The talc and asbestos are often mined in close proximity and for industrial, cosmetic and a wide variety of other uses. This leads to potential intertwining in veins and a high possibility of cross-contamination. 

Why is asbestos a problem?

Science confirms there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. The fibers contained in the asbestos are released into the air when the material holding them is disturbed. Inhaling these fibers can lead to serious diseases, such as lung and ovarian cancer, asbestosis, and the deadly mesothelioma. Talc products are often distributed as loose powders, a sure way to allow inhalation to anyone using them or in the vicinity.

Approximately 15,000 Americans die each year because of exposure to asbestos according to Scott Faber, Senior Vice President of the Environmental Working Group.

What’s next?

In March of 2019, Representatives Debbie Dingell (D-MI) and Jane Schakowsky (D-IL), introduced The Children’s Product Warning Label Act. This act required products marketed to children have a warning label declaring the product was not evaluated for asbestos content. To avoid the label, the product would require a written certification from the HHS Secretary that the product is from an asbestos-free mine and include proof to the FDA that the product is asbestos-free through testing by an electron microscopy method. At this time, there has been no action on the bill.

No other bills to increase testing for asbestos in talc products are pending. 

Cancer Diagnoses Declining as COVID-19 Fears Rise

By

Generally, to find cancer diagnoses declining would be good news, but this decline is due to fewer people willing to risk COVID-19 for a doctor visit. Six common cancers and their diagnoses were studied: breast, colorectal, lung, pancreatic, gastric and esophageal. A 46% decrease was found between March 1 and April 18 – the same time period the public was warned to stay away from doctors’ offices and emergency departments unless it was a true emergency.

safe doctor office practices to change cancer diagnoses declining

Since that time, safety procedures were put in place that lessened worry about these visits. Even though the warnings about visits are much fewer, the initial fear of visits – leading to diagnoses – are still less than pre-Pandemic.

How was the study conducted?

Quest analyzed tests ordered by doctors who entered the code for ‘new cancer diagnosis’. They began with a baseline covering January 2019 through February 2020. In the following seven weeks, March 1 through April 18, the mean weekly number for all six types of cancer diagnoses decreased 46.4% for those newly diagnosed with cancer. Quest found that in the baseline and pandemic studies, women with a mean age of 66 comprised 75% of their patients.

What does cancer diagnoses declining mean to patients?

Ned Sharpless, director of the National Cancer Institiute, stated this delay of diagnoses could mean 10,000 unnecessary deaths from breast and colorectal cancer over the next ten years. He also said, “We’re very worried about the consequences of … delaying therapy on our patients. We can’t delay cancer care forever.” This could be trading the COVID-19 crisis for a late cancer diagnosis crisis. The United States now has 163, 651 deaths from COVID-19 as of August 11, 2020. This is a huge number.

Other effects of COVID-19

The purpose of the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP) is to collect electronic health data in real time. They found that visits to emergency departments declined by 42% comparing March 31 – April 27, 2019  to March 29 – April 25, 2020.  This data covered visits from a subset of hospitals in 47 states. This led to acquiring data from approximately 73% of emergency department visits in the United States.

This demonstrates that patients afraid of going to the doctor’s office, also were slow to go to the emergency room. A person with arm or chest pain may decide it’s better to wait and see what happens than go to the emergency room, leading to a potential heart attack. Visits for nonspecific chest pain decreased by over 24,000 during the early pandemic.

They may try to ignore a severe headache and treat with OTC remedies when it could be a treatable stroke. They also may hesitate to go with abdominal pain, musculoskeletal pain, high blood pressure, and nausea and vomiting, respiratory infections – as well as sprains and strains. While some of these might be minor, others could lead to serious illness or death.

Those who use emergency departments as their primary healthcare – usually because of lack of access to primary care – may be significantly affected, leading to avoidance of their normal safety net.

What to do?

Authorities, and the media, must stress doctor visits, regular checkups and needed tests are still necessary to stop the number of cancer diagnoses declining. They must also reassure the public that health facilities have guidelines in place for monitoring entrance to facilities, mandatory face masks, and social distancing. All facilities need frequent access to approved hand sanitizers and hand washing stations. Good use of phone and video calls for triage can quickly assess emergency situations and limit crowds. For those afraid that telemedicine may not be covered with their insurance, check with providers. Currently, because of the emergency status, most insurances are paying as if in-person. In most cases, that also includes Medicare.

While COVID-19 is serious and can be deadly, so can ignoring early detection of cancer and other health risks.

Cancer diagnoses declining is the canary in the mine warning everyone that this is not a time to neglect health care.