Mesothelioma Asbestos Lawyer, DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for New Mexico personal injury lawyer

New Mexico personal injury lawyer

Updated Warning About Hand Sanitizers

By

There is an updated warning about hand sanitizers – now a list of over 100 products. Most are manufactured in Mexico. Some have insufficient amounts of ethyl or isopropyl alcohol, while others have methanol, a potentially deadly ingredient.

FDA updated warnings on July 31

The announcement by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated, “FDA test results show certain hand sanitizers have concerningly low levels of ethyl alcohol or isopropyl alcohol, which are active ingredients in hand sanitizer products. The agency urges consumers not to use these subpotent products and has expanded its list to include subpotent hand sanitizers, in addition to hand sanitizers that are or may be contaminated with methanol.”

Why not use methanol in hand sanitizers?

Methanol is toxic and was found in a number of hand sanitizers. It can enter a person’s system through inhalation, ingestion, and absorption through skin. It can produce nausea, vomiting, blindness, loss of consciousness, and can cause death. Children are especially susceptible to harm. It is also flammable due to its fumes. Not all bottles may be labeled sufficiently, so the best path is to use brands that are recognizable.

With the shortage of hand sanitizers, the FDA enlisted an additional 1500 manufacturers to produce the product. They are testing products as they’re produced and found most substandard sanitizers manufactured in Mexico. Recalls were issued as well as alerts that stop their importation into the country. Still, be aware of the warning about hand sanitizers – vigilance is key.

What are other problems?

Many of the new entrants to the sanitizer market are distillers and other companies not familiar with the manufacture of hand sanitizers. Some of the issues found include:

  • A lower than allowed percentage of ethyl or isopropyl alcohol
    • A minimal 60% ethanol/ethyl and 70% isopropyl/isopropanol alcohol is necessary for sanitizing. It should show as the active ingredient on the label.
  • Bottles that resemble small liquor, soda or water bottles
    • This has led to accidental or intentional ingestion of a toxic liquid – especially in children.
  • Bottles that are not resealable
    • The alcohol can evaporate if not sufficiently sealed.
  • Alcohol that is not denatured
    • This is a little known, but critical need. Denaturing gives the product a bitter taste and bad smell that discourages consumption.
    • Distilleries do not use this process in the making of spirits. The ingredients are expensive and hard to find. Damage to distillers’ equipment can occur with the denatured alcohol. With these impediments, the American Distilling Institute (ADI) and the FDA still recommend compliance despite the obstacles.

Soap and water is best

Recommendations are to use hand sanitizers ONLY if soap and water are not available. Plain soap is preferred over antibacterial products. Why? Overuse of antibiotic soaps can encourage bacteria growth that will no longer be killed by antibiotics. Clostridioides difficile (C. diff), a hard-to-cure infection often found in hospitals, does not respond to hand sanitizers. Only soap and water are effective in killing and avoiding the spread of C. diff. Additionally, there is no proof that antibacterial soaps work better than plain soaps.

What can you do to protect yourself and your family?

• Take any warning about hand sanitizers seriously and check the FDA sites regularly for updates.

• Wash your hands with soap when possible and use alcohol-based hand sanitizers with the recommended percentages of alcohol.

• Be wary of hand sanitizers coming from Mexico because of possible methanol and less than recommended percentages of approved alcohols.

• Keep all hand sanitizers out of the reach of children. If they are in a bottle that resembles soda, water, or liquor transfer to another bottle, such as a travel sized shampoo bottle.

Check your current hand sanitizers and when shopping

Be aware of the warning about hand sanitizers. The FDA instructs you should avoid the following products:

Blumen Clear Advanced Hand Sanitizer with 70% Alcohol

Blumen Advanced Instant Hand Sanitizer Clear Ethyl Alcohol 70%

BLUMEN Advanced Instant Hand Sanitizer Clear

KLAR AND DANVER Instant Hand Sanitizer

MODESA Instant Hand Sanitizer Moisturizers and Vitamin E

BLUMEN Advanced Hand Sanitizer

BLUMEN Advanced Hand Sanitizer Aloe

BLUMEN Advanced Instant Hand Sanitizer Lavender

BLUMEN Clear Advanced Hand Sanitizer

BLUMEN Clear LEAR Advanced Hand Sanitizer

The Honeykeeper Hand Sanitizer

BLUMEN Advanced Hand Sanitizer Clear

BLUMEN Clear Advanced Instant Hand Sanitizer

BLUMEN Clear Advanced Instant Hand Sanitizer Aloe

BLUMEN Clear Advanced Instant Hand Sanitizer Lavender

BLUMEN Aloe Advanced Hand Sanitizer, with 70 Alcohol

Blumen Advanced Hand Sanitizer Lavender, with 70% alcohol

Blumen Advanced Hand Sanitizer Aloe, with 70% alcohol

Blumen Antibacterial Fresh Citrus Hand Sanitizer

Blumen Hand Sanitizer Fresh Citrus

KLAR and DANVER Instant Hand Sanitizer

Hello Kitty Hand Sanitizer

Assured Instant Hand Sanitizer (Vitamin E and Aloe)

Assured Instant Hand Sanitizer (Aloe and Moisturizers)

Assured Instant Hand Sanitizer Vitamin E and Aloe

Assured Instant Hand Sanitizer Aloe and Moisturizers

BLUMEN Instant Hand Sanitizer Fragrance Free

BLUMEN Instant Hand Sanitizer Aloe Vera

Assured Aloe

bio aaa Advance Hand Sanitizer 

LumiSkin Advance Hand Sanitizer 4 oz

LumiSkin Advance Hand Sanitizer 16 oz

QualitaMed Hand Sanitizer  

NEXT Hand Sanitizer

Clear Advanced Hand Sanitizer with 70% Alcohol extra soft with glycerin and aloe

NuuxSan Instant Antibacterial Hand Sanitizer

NuuxSan Instant Hand Sanitizer

Assured Instant Antiseptic Hand Sanitizer with Aloe and Moisturizers

Assured Instant Antiseptic Hand Sanitizer with Vitamin E and Aloe

Modesa Instant Antiseptic Hand Sanitizer with Moisturizers and Aloe Vera

Modesa Instant Antiseptic Hand Sanitizer with Moisturizers and Vitamin E

Herbacil Antiseptic Hand Sanitizer 70% Alcohol

Earths Amenities Instant Unscented Hand Sanitizer with Aloe Vera Advanced

Hand Sanitizer Agavespa Skincare

Vidanos Easy Cleaning Rentals Hand Sanitizer Agavespa Skincare

All-Clean Hand Sanitizer

Esk Biochem Hand Sanitizer

Lavar 70 Gel Hand Sanitizer

The Good Gel Antibacterial Gel Hand Sanitizer

CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol

CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 75% Alcohol

Saniderm Advanced Hand Sanitizer

Hand sanitizer Gel Unscented 70% Alcohol

Medicare Alcohol Antiseptic Topical Solution

GelBact Hand Sanitizer

Hand Sanitizer

TriCleanz

Sayab Antisepctic Hand Sanitizer 100

Jaloma Antiseptic Hand Sanitizer Ethyl Alcohol 62% with Vitamin E

Leiper’s Fork Distillery Bulk Disinfectant per 5 gallon and Leiper’s Fork Distillery 16 oz bottle

Andy’s Best

Andy’s

NeoNatural

Plus Advanced

Optimus Instant Hand Sanitizer

Optimus Lubricants Instant Hand Sanitizer

Selecto Hand Sanitizer

Shine and Clean Hand Sanitizer

Hand Sanitizer Disinfectant Gel 70% Ethyl Alcohol

Hand Sanitizer Disinfectant Gel 70% Ethyl Alcohol Rinse Free Hand Rub

Mystic Shield Protection hand sanitizer

Born Basic. Anti-Bac Hand Sanitizer 70% alcohol

Born Basic. Anti-Bac Hand Sanitizer 65% Alcohol

Scent Theory — Keep It Clean — Pure Clean Anti-bacterial Hand Sanitizer

Cavalry

ENLIVEN Hand Sanitizing Gel

Lux Eoi Hand Sanitizing Gel

Scent Theory — Keep It Clean — Pure Clean Anti-bacterial Hand Sanitizer

Bersih Hand Sanitizer Gel Fragrance Free

Bersih Antiseptic Alcohol 70% Topical Solution hand sanitizer

Purity Advanced Hand Sanitizer

Hand Sanitizer Gel Alcohol 70%

TriCleanz Tritanium Labs Hand Sanitizer

Britz Hand Sanitizer Ethyl Alcohol 70%    

Parabola Hand Sanitizer  

Urbane Bath and Body Hand Sanitizer    

Cleaner Hand Sanitizer Rinse Free 70%    

Handzer Hand Sanitizer Rinse Free

Kleanz Antibacterial Hand Sanitizer Advanced

Be Safe Hand Sanitizer

Wave Hand Sanitizer Gel

DAESI Hand Sanitizer  

Some Hand Sanitizers May Prove Dangerous

By

Though hand sanitizers are widely used to prevent the spread of COVID19, some hand sanitizers may prove dangerous.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) discovered an increase in sanitizer products labeled to contain ethanol (ethyl alcohol) may, instead, contain methanol, a possibly fatal ingredient. Below are hand sanitizers to avoid completely. The FDA investigation continues for other problems. In general, use no hand sanitizer products manufactured by Eskbiochem.

What is methanol and what are the effects?

It is also called wood alcohol. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it is present in industrial products as a solvent, pesticide, and alternative fuel source. When exposed to methanol – such as when cleaning hands – nausea and vomiting, headache, seizures, coma, blurred vision, permanent blindness, permanent nervous system damage and even death can result.

Products manufactured by Eskbiochem

These have been recalled:

•   Saniderm Advanced Hand Sanitizer which comes in 1-liter plastic bottles labeled “Made in Mexico” and “Produced by: Eskbiochem SA de CV” distributed by Saniderm Products and UVT.

  • The UVT hand sanitizer is labeled with lot number 0530 and an expiration date of 04/2022.
  • The Saniderm Products hand sanitizer is labeled with lot number 53131626 and “Manufactured on April/1/20.”

•  ITECH 361’s All Clean Hand Sanitizer, Moisturizer and Disinfectant: UPC code 628055370130.

•  Transliquid Technologies’ Mystic Shield Protection hand sanitizer: NDC numbers include 75477-435-02, 75477-435-10, 75477-435-12, 75477-435-25, 75477-435-50 and 75477-534-10.

These Eskbiochem products, to date, are not removed from the marketplace. Products to avoid include:

  • All-Clean Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-002-01)
  • Esk Biochem Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-007-01)
  • CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 75% Alcohol (NDC: 74589-008-04)
  • Lavar 70 Gel Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-006-01)
  • The Good Gel Antibacterial Gel Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-010-10)
  • CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol (NDC: 74589-005-03)
  • CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 75% Alcohol (NDC: 74589-009-01)
  • CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol (NDC: 74589-003-01)
  • Saniderm Advanced Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-001-01)

The FDA also tested the following products and found they contained methanol or were “purportedly made at the same facility as products in which FDA has tested and confirmed methanol contamination.”

  • Grupo Insoma’s Hand Sanitizer Gel Unscented 70% Alcohol: NDC numbers include 75744-0200-3, 75744-0200-4, 75744-0201-5, 75744-0202-1, 75744-0250-1, 75744-0250-2, 75744-0500-1, 75744-1000-1, 75744-1000-3 and 75744-1001-1.
  • Soluciones Cosmeticas’ Bersih Hand Sanitizer Gel Fragrance Free: NDC numbers include 75165-003-02, 75165-004-01, 75165-005-01, 75165-006-01, 75165-008-01, 75165-250-01 and 75165-600-01.
  • Soluciones Cosmeticas’ Antiseptic Alcohol 70% Topical Solution hand sanitizer: No NDC numbers listed.
  • Tropicosmeticos’ Britz Hand Sanitizer Ethyl Alcohol 70%: NCD numbers include 76676-402-01, 77676-402-02, 77676-402-03, 77676-402-04, 77676-402-05, 77676-402-06, 77676-402-07, 77676-402-08, 77676-402-09, 77676-402-10, 77676-402-11, 77676-402-12, 77676-402-13, 77676-402-14, 77676-402-16, 77676-402-17, 77676-402-18, 77676-402-19 and 77676-402-20.

What should you do if you used or possess any of these products?

It is critical to get immediate treatment if you, or someone you know, was exposed to a hand sanitizer containing methanol. This can allow possible reversal of the toxic effects of methanol poisoning, but must be done as soon as possible.

Children who accidentally swallow these sanitizers are at greater risk, as is anyone who drinks these as a substitute for alcohol (ethanol.)

To dispose of these products, put them in hazardous waste containers immediately and take to a disposal site. Do not put them in recycling. Do not flush or pour them down a drain.

Remember, though some hand sanitizers may prove dangerous, the best sanitizing defense is to wash hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds.

Uber Self-Driving Car Kills Pedestrian

By

The first case of a pedestrian killed by a self-driving car occurred in Tempe, Arizona. This technology is still in the experimental phase, however Uber self-driving cars are on the roads in Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and Toronto – as well as Tempe.

Are self-driving cars safer?

Increased safety was the initial premise for the existence of unmanned self-driving cars. One of the primary causes of automobile accidents is distracted driving. In a robotic car, that should not be a problem, but obviously there are issues to be addressed. Building systems to automatically react appropriately in unexpected situations is a difficult task.

What happened in Tempe?

In this case, the car did have a human in the car as a backup. It appears the car, a Volvo XC90, was going about 40 MPH on dry streets with clear weather at 10 p.m. on a Sunday. An investigation is ongoing since the safety driver did not appear impaired. The victim, a 49 year-old woman, was walking her bicycle in the street. Though this was the first accident involving a pedestrian, one of these autonomous vehicles collided with another car in March of 2017.

Safety measures in place

Because states are eager to encourage testing, there are few regulations in place – not only with Uber, but Waymo, Lyft and Cruise, owned by General Motors. Doug Ducey, governor of Arizona, said in 2017, “We needed our message to Uber, Lyft and other entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley to be that Arizona was open to new ideas.” Originally Arizona mandated a backup driver in the car, but recently that was changed to allow testing of unmanned self-driving cars. This leniency is to boost the economy by allowing a low regulatory environment.

California is on the cusp of allowing unmanned vehicles, but is still investigating the proposition. In its testing of manned self-driving cars, Waymo has produced statistics required by California. When a human has to take control, it’s called a disengagement. In just over a year, Waymo’s cars drove 350,000 miles with 63 disengagements. This averages approximately 5,600 miles between disengagement events, clearly demonstrating the need for more testing before widespread use of unmanned vehicles.

Michael Bennett, an associate research professor at Arizona State University, has been studying the reaction of the public to driverless cars and their artificial intelligence. His comment on the aftermath of the Tempe pedestrian incident reveal his conclusion, “We’ve imagined an event like this as a huge inflection point for the technology and the companies advocating for it. They’re going to have to do a lot to prove that the technology is safe.”

Who’s Fault is Injury from Self-Driving Car?

“Look for insurance companies to lobby for profound changes in state insurance requirements and state laws”, says Dallas lawyer, Ben DuBose. “However, in the Arizona Uber incident, there was a back-up driver in the car. So, there’s still a question of why the back-up driver didn’t disengage and potential liability for her. People will still need car auto insurance and will still have potential liability.”

At the same time, as we head into the self-driving car era, DuBose says to look for additional new legal theories to address the autonomous car features. Automobile manufacturers and software designers will face new product liability claims. As even Volvo Car Corp. Vice President, Anders Karrberg recently testified before Congress “[c]armakers should take liability for any system in the car. So we have declared that if there is a malfunction to the [autonomous driving] system when operating autonomously, we would take the product liability.”

Should Nursing Home Patients Have the Right to Sue?

By

Imagine being admitted as a nursing home patient for rehab from an accident. While there you contract a potentially fatal disease solely the fault of inadequate care.

Maybe you have an elderly parent in another state. You determine that a nursing home close to their friends is the only option for your parent to get the care needed. Then you hear from a visitor that your parent is being neglected, or maybe physically, mentally, or emotionally abused.

In these, and other serious personal injury cases like them, you would generally want to sue – not only for the patient, but to let others know there’s a problem.

The arbitration clause

During the Obama presidency, a ruling from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) banned facilities that accept Medicare and Medicaid funds from requiring residents to sign pre-dispute arbitration clauses. This ban gave them the option to sue – a positive step for patients already stressed.

This ruling never took place due to a preliminary injunction by the American Health Care Association, the nursing home industry trade group. Now it’s possible there will be no option to go to trial due to a new rule by the Trump administration. Nursing homes would be able to continue the requirement for new residents to sign an arbitration clause. Refusal could mean no admittance.

The proposed new rule would require the agreement to be written in plain language, not legalese, with verification that the person understands. Kelly Bagby, a senior counsel with the AARP Foundation, does not think this makes it fair. “The ‘plain language’ requirement ‘gives with one hand the idea that it’s transparent, and takes away with another by saying ‘you don’t have a choice but to sign this.’”

The pros and cons of arbitration

Signing an arbitration clause in a contract – a common procedure at admittance – takes away the patient’s right to a trial. All conflicts must go through a third-party arbitration, generally more secretive than through a civil court, and awards to the plaintiff are up to 35 percent lower. To a population already in a stressful situation, signing this is often misunderstood or perceived as just one more piece of paper to sign.

There are supporters of arbitration. As Matt Webb, senior vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform says, “arbitration is a system that is simpler, fairer, and faster for all parties concerned.” He goes further to say that “Studies basically show that if the arbitration agreement’s not done prior to a dispute arising, very few if anyone ever really agrees to go into arbitration at that point.”

This statement says a lot about the fairness of arbitration. If it’s so fair and simple, why wouldn’t a person agree without coercion?

What you can do

This is not a ruling – yet. If this concerns you, contact your U.S. representatives and senators and give them your opinion. “We the people” still have a voice.

Microsoft No Longer Forces Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

By

In December, Microsoft announced it will no longer force secrecy in sexual harassment claims through the contract clause called forced arbitration. Going forward, Microsoft’s contracts will have this section removed.

What is forced arbitration?

For too long women, and men, subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace have been unable to take the matter to trial due to this clause. This results in fewer public trials and smaller settlements for the victims as claims are mediated through a third party without the ability to go to court. Just as troubling, forced arbitration hides what may be a widespread or ongoing problem within an organization from public knowledge.

Emily Martin, general counsel and vice president for workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, said, “By doing this, Microsoft is saying that it’s going to take concrete steps to make its workplace culture more conducive to addressing and preventing harassment. That message is important above and beyond the impact on individuals whose contracts are about to change.”

Martin further stated, “While Microsoft apparently didn’t use these provisions across its workforce, some companies use them more indiscriminately across their workforces to bind lower-wage workers as well as higher-wage workers. By standing up and saying that it believes that these provisions aren’t fair to employees, Microsoft helps change the conversation in a way that has the potential to help a lot of people by increasing the pressure on companies to do the same.”

Will this change sexual harassment claims?

This is a step in the right direction, however approximately 60 million American workers have these arbitration clauses in their contracts, and according to a study by the Employment Rights Advocacy Institute for Law & Policy, 80% of America’s 100 largest companies use them.

While changing the clauses and culture in the large companies would make a huge impact, working in a small company may still bind employees to forced arbitration in the event of sexual harassment. These companies could be fearful of lawsuits that would put them out of business and are not nearly as visible as a company such as Microsoft. Therefore, they will probably not face media disapproval in the same way and are not willing to take their chances in a court of law just to avoid negative publicity. For them, the forced arbitration clause is an insurance policy.

Legislators see need for reform

In December 2017, a bipartisan group of lawmakers called for legislation to end forced arbitration for sexual harassment claims in the workplace. Rep. Cheri Bustos, a Democrat from Illinois sponsored two pieces of legislation: H.R.4734 and H.R.4570. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat from New York, also backs the bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, called on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to support the bill. Both bills were referred to the subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.

 

Other blog post from DuBose Law Firm

Arbitration Agreements Change for Nursing Homes and Long Term Care Facilities