The Volkswagen Emission Deception

Recently, Volkswagen owners learned they were the victims of a deception. While many of these owners took pride in investing in vehicles believed to be equipped with some of the most environmentally-friendly technology, known as “clean diesel,” for which they paid thousands of dollars, these drivers instead learned that VW had done nothing more than engineer its vehicles to cheat on environmental tests.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, an investigation into VW vehicles was launched in 2014 to assess compliance with the Clean Air Act by VW diesel light duty vehicles model years 2009 to 2015. Questions had been raised after a study revealed that in the lab, VW vehicles complied with federal emission standards, yet road tests indicated the cars actually emitted nitrogen oxide over 40 times the federal limits.

VW has now admitted to installing software known as a “defeat device” in over 400,000 of its vehicles. This software can detect when emission testing is being performed and then activates countermeasures to reduce emissions. When the vehicles are not being tested, this emission-reducing technology is disabled, leading to the drastic rise in pollution levels.

For more than a year, VW deceived the EPA, telling regulators that the discrepancy between lab and road tests could be explained by “various technical issues and unexpected in-use conditions.” It was not until the EPA threatened not to approve VW’s 2016 line of diesel cars that the automaker decided to come clean and admit to its massive deceit.

Aside from its admission of guilt, VW has now halted sales of its diesel vehicles in the U.S. However, this is only the start of what will surely be a long road to recovery for the auto giant. According to EPA regulations, the company could be fined $37,500 for each car sold with a defeat device — a potential fine of $18 billion.

And aside from the regulatory penalties, consumers should be compensated for this deception.

The VW vehicles affected include:

2009 VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen

2010 VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3

2011 VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3

2012 VW Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, VW Passat, Audi A3

2013 VW Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, VW Passat, Audi A3

2014 VW Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, VW Passat, Audi A3

VW Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf, VW Golf Sportwagen, VW Jetta, VW Passat, Audi A3

If you or a loved one have purchased any of these vehicles, please contact the attorneys at Chhabra & Gibbs, P.A., at 601-948-8005 or by going to our website at http://www.cglawms.com . You deserve to be compensated. It doesn’t cost you anything to call and talk to an attorney to see what options you have.

Xarelto

Xarelto is linked to serious side effects, including the potential risk of bleeding. In the first quarter of 2013, the number of reported adverse events associated with Xarelto surpassed Pradaxa, another new oral anticoagulant, which had previously ranked as the No. 1 reported drug for adverse events in 2012. As a result, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration changed its boxed warning on Xarelto in March 2014.

Legal cases involving this powerful anticoagulant drug marketed as a blood thinner can be very complicated. That’s why it’s critical you have an experienced Xarelto injury lawyer on your side. Don’t let pharmaceutical companies dictate what happens to you. Contact us. Our attorneys at Chhabra & Gibbs, P.A. can help you get the legal assistance you need.

What are serious side effects due to Xarelto?

Bayer AG created and marketed Xarelto primarily as a blood thinner. Unfortunately, this powerful drug has many dangerous side effects, including:
·         Major/Serious Bleeding
·         Brain Hemorrhaging
·         Gastrointestinal Bleeding
·         Urinary Tract Bleeding
·         Adrenal Bleeding
·         Pulmonary Embolisms
·         Stroke
·         Spinal/Epidural Hematomas
·         Fatal/Uncontrolled Bleeding
·         Thrombosis

How do you know if you or a loved one is suffering from serious side effects from Xarelto?  Some of the most common symptoms due to Xarelto exposure include nose bleeds, vomiting blood, headaches, dizziness, fainting, fatigue, red or brown urine, hypotension, unexplained swelling and muscle weakness.

What should I do if I am suffering from side effects due to Xarelto?

Don’t underestimate the seriousness of your symptoms. If you believe you or a loved one is a victim of Xarelto, we strongly urge you to take the following steps:

Seek immediate medical attention – Don’t take chances with your health. Visit an emergency room or your own doctor now. Serious health problems due to Xarelto can be life threatening.

Gather evidence – The more information you have about your health issues caused by Xarelto, the better off you will be if you need to file a Xarelto lawsuit. That way, if an insurance company or pharmaceutical manufacturer raises doubts, you’ll have proof of your medical issue. Evidence can include such things as photographs of health issues, copies of medical records and prescriptions, and a timeline or journal of when and what you notice about your health.

You might think you don’t need a lawyer. If you or a loved one is suffering from serious side effects due to Xarelto, you might think you can deal directly with insurance companies or Bayer HealthCare AG and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which markets Xarelto in the United States.

Don’t be so sure. In most cases, most insurance companies and multi-national drug manufacturers only care about one thing – paying injury victims as little as possible. Make sure you have an attorney you can trust looking out for your best interests in your product liability case.

Don’t let large corporations dictate what happens to you. Take back control. Contact the attorneys at Chhabra & Gibbs, P.A., at 601-948-8005 or by going to our website at http://www.cglawms.com . We might be able to help you receive compensation allowed by law for damages or injuries. It doesn’t cost you anything to call and talk to an attorney to see what options you have.

$635,325 Judgment in Lincoln County Wrongful Death Bench Trial

Recently, Chhabra & Gibbs, P.A. gained another major victory on behalf of one of our clients. Philip W. Thomas, from the MS Litigation Review blog site, made a recent blog article explaining the outcome of the case:

$635,325 Judgment in Lincoln County Wrongful Death Bench Trial

On July 23, 2015 Circuit Court Judge David Strong entered a $635,325 judgment in McCrory v. Lincoln County School District. The judgment resulted from a tort claims act bench trial in a case involving a car-school bus wreck.

The accident happened in 2011. The decedent, Tammy Jo Brown was traveling on a road in Wesson when she collided with a Lincoln County school bus traveling in the opposite direction. The school bus was two feet over the center line at the time of the collision. Brown died at the scene.

Brown was speeding: 68 mph in a 20 mph zone before the collision and 52 mph at the time of the collision. The school bus was also speeding: 35 mph. The bus driver saw the car approaching from two hills away, yet didn’t get into her own lane. The bus driver also didn’t show up for the trial.

The Court apportioned 90% fault to the bus driver and 10% fault to Brown. The Court assessed damages as $205,917 in economic damages and $500,000 in loss of society and companionship.

Due to Brown’s 10% fault, the damages were reduced and judgment entered in the amount of $635,325.

Defendant’s top offer to settle before trial was $230,000. 

      

Darryl Gibbs of Chhabra & Gibbs in Jackson represented the plaintiff. Bobby Thompson with Copeland Cook in Ridgeland represented the County.

If you or a loved one have experienced any type of injury or death due to someone else’s negligence, please contact the attorneys at Chhabra & Gibbs, P.A., at 601-948-8005 or by going to our website at http://www.cglawms.com . We might be able to help you receive compensation allowed by law for damages or injuries. It doesn’t cost you anything to call and talk to an attorney to see what options you have.

Job Applicant’s Knee Injury Was Compensable

Recently, Chhabra & Gibbs, P.A.  gained a major victory on behalf of our Workers Compensation client.  Sherri Okamoto, from the WorkCompCentral website made a recent news article explaining the outcome of the case:

Job applicants who are required to undergo pre-employment testing can get workers' compensation benefits if they get hurt during the process, according to the Mississippi Court of Appeals.

The court ruled in a decision handed down July 21 that Kevin Collins had an “implied contract of hire” with Averitt Express when he injured his knee during his "road test." Thus, the court said Collins was an Averitt "employee," even though he flunked the test and he didn't get the truck driver position he had sought.

The case was Averitt Express v. Collins, No. 2014-WC-00936-COA.

Averitt, an international transportation and freight logistics company, offered Collins a job three years ago, contingent on his successful completion of a physical, a drug screen and a road test.

Collins came to Averitt's facility in Cookeville, Tennessee, for his road test and his new-hire orientation. As part of the test, Collins had to physically enter and exit the rear of a trailer in a specific manner. He tore a meniscus while trying.

Averitt then rescinded the job offer, based on his failure to pass the requirements of the road test. It still paid him a per diem of $75 for coming to the orientation, and $238.68 for his mileage.

Although Averitt referred him to a doctor, Collins paid for his own treatment.

Collins later filed a workers' compensation petition, which Averitt contested on the basis that Collins never became its employee.

However, Administrative Judge Tammy Harthcock determined that Collins was an "employee" pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 71-3- 3(d), even though he never got the truck driver position with Averitt.

The Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission agreed, as did the Court of Appeals.

Last Tuesday, the court explained that Section 71-3- 3(d) defines an “employee” as “any person . . . in the service of an employer under any contract of hire or apprenticeship, written or oral, express or implied."

For a "contract of hire" to exist, the court said, there generally must be "mutual consent, consideration, and right of control." Although these elements are not rigidly applied in workers' compensation cases, the court found these elements were all present for Collins and Averitt.

Mutual consent is defined as a "meeting of the minds of both parties to a contract," the court said.

Since Collins applied for the job and came to the test and orientation, the court said he clearly intended to accept the offer of employment.

And since Averitt extended the offer and welcomed him to the company, the court said, it appeared "Averitt had every intention of hiring him" once he passed the road-test requirements.

The court further reasoned that Averitt had provided consideration to Collins, even though he was never on the company payroll, since he was compensated for attending the orientation and for his mileage.

Averitt also benefited from Collins' coming to participate in the road test, because it helped Averitt carry out its business of hiring truck drivers, the court said.

The court went on to note that Averitt "clearly controlled the road-test environment" – directing not only Collins' activities, but also dictating his grooming and manner of dress.

As such, the court said substantial evidence supported the Commission's decision to uphold the award of benefits to Collins.

Rogen K. Chhabra of Chhabra & Gibbs represented Collins, along with Darryl Gibbs, Candace Mayberry, Ashley Hendricks and Seth Thompson.

Chhabra said he thought last week's decision was simply a restatement of the existing law in Mississippi for determining when a worker qualifies as an "employee."

He said the important distinction to make was that Averitt never formally hired Collins as a truck driver, but it "hired him for the initial job of participating in the application process" to get that truck driver position.

As Averitt was having people come to try out for the truck driver job, directing them in what to do and compensating them for their time, Chhabra said Averitt was basically "employing them as (job) applicants." He acknowledged that most industries "don't have such an intense application process that they have to pay people to come participate in it," but "for those industries that need it, they need to know that they are going to have to consider these people employees."

The law in Mississippi is clear, Chhabra said, "if you are controlled and compensated by an employer, you are an employee, period."

He said he wouldn't be at all surprised if Averitt appealed Tuesday's decision, although he said the statistical odds of the Supreme Court granting review are slim. In any event, he said he believed "Averitt's argument that (Collins) wasn't an employee is just not tenable under Mississippi law," and he doubted it would fly in any other state either.

Thompson, who is now part of Maggio & Thompson, handled much of the case up until it reached the Court of Appeals.

Thompson said Monday he expected Averitt to seek review by the Supreme Court, and if it does, he predicted his colleagues from the Chhabra firm "will probably win there too."

While there is no "bright-line rule" for determining the compensability of injuries during the hiring process, and cases are "entirely fact-driven," the Collins case boils down to the fact that "in Mississippi there are three qualifications to be an employee, and he satisfied them," Thompson said.

"This may not have been your typical employment situation," Thompson allowed, "for purposes of Mississippi workers' compensation, this was employment."

Martin W. Zummach and Gregory Morton of Sparkman-Zummach represented Averitt. They could not be reached Monday for comment.

Inventure Foods and Listeria

Inventure Foods is recalling dozens of frozen-vegetable products as well as Jamba brand smoothie kits from large supermarkets and retail centers in several states, including Mississippi according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration email alert distributed this morning.

The voluntary recall by Inventure Foods, Inc. affects dozens of varieties of the company’s “Fresh Frozen” line of frozen vegetables as well as select varieties of its Jamba “At Home” line of smoothie kits because of the detection of Listeria monocytogenes bacteria during routine testing in the company’s production facility in Jefferson, Georgia.

To view a list of the specific products recalled, go to www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls.

No known illnesses linked to consumption of Fresh Frozen frozen vegetables or Jamba “At Home” smoothies have been reported to date, and no listeria has been detected in the products themselves, but the company issued the recall notice because of the detected presence of the bacteria in the production facility.

Listeria can cause infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems, the FDA said. Healthy people may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, but a listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Inventure Foods urged those who purchased recalled product to destroy the contents and its package and notify the company to obtain a refund.

If you’ve been injured or hurt due to consuming “Fresh Frozen” line of vegetables or Jamba “At Home” smoothies that have been recalled, please contact the attorneys at Chhabra & Gibbs, P.A., at 601-948-8005 or by going to our website at http://www.cglawms.com . We might be able to help you receive compensation allowed by law for damages or injuries. It doesn’t cost you anything to call and talk to an attorney to see what options you have.

Blue Bell Ice Cream and Listeria

There have been three different recalls in the last month pertaining to Listeria contamination. Blue Bell has now begun to recall more ice cream due to pints of banana pudding ice cream testing positive for listeriosis. The contaminated ice cream came from the Broken Arrow, Oklahoma plant which serves a variety of supermarkets throughout several states, including Mississippi, according to Blue Bell.

More and more products are being recalled from Blue Bell Creameries, as 3 of the 8 people hospitalized for Listeria have already. For a complete list of the recalls, take a look here.

Blue Bell Creameries are not the only Listeria contamination recall this week; Sabra Hummus has also had some of their product test positive for the food-borne illness as well.

If you have consumed Blue Bell Ice Cream on the recall list and then become ill, contact your physician, and then contact Chhabra & Gibbs, P.A.  Also, keep the ice cream in your possession but store them in a location where they will not be consumed by anyone.

If you’ve been injured or hurt due to consuming Blue Bell Ice Cream that has been recalled, please contact the attorneys at Chhabra & Gibbs, P.A., at 601-948-8005 or by going to our website at http://www.cglawms.com . We might be able to help you receive compensation allowed by law for damages or injuries. It doesn’t cost you anything to call and talk to an attorney to see what options you have.

I Want to Speak to the Attorney

Every day, we get calls where a client insists on speaking to an attorney.  Sometimes they are new potential clients and sometimes, they have been a client for a long time.  We strive to return every call every day and make our attorneys as accessible as possible.  But where you find good lawyers, you find very busy lawyers.  And where lawyers are busy, efficiency matters.  So when is it ever appropriate to call and demand that an attorney get on the phone?

Perhaps an analogy is appropriate here.  Do you ever call up the doctor’s office and demand to speak to the doctor right now?  Do you ever walk in and demand to see him immediately?  Have you ever seen a doctor without some person that works for him take your vital signs and triage you?  Lawyers, the good ones that are busy, don’t work any different than doctors.  The job of the lawyer is to diagnose and treat the legal problem.  To diagnose each problem, he or she needs some basic information.  And every second spent getting basic information that the lawyer’s staff is paid to obtain, is a second less that the lawyer can concentrate on hearings, trials, depositions, and other important “treatment” for the solution.

So next time you call a lawyer’s office, instead of saying “I want to talk to a lawyer now,” perhaps you would actually get quicker diagnosis and treatment, if you would allow the lawyer’s office to work as efficiently as it is designed to do, and allow the assistant, receptionist, or paralegal to get the basic needed information so that an efficient solution can be provided.