Cincinnati Attorney Articles
Below you will find legal and medical articles, legal forms, and legal memoranda on a variety of civil litigation topics. The forms are simply for reference and should not be used in isolation or without the advice of counsel.
INCREASE RISK OF PELVIC MESH SIDE EFFECTS REPORTED IN MEDICAL LITERATURE
Recently, the FDA has issued a Notice that it is reviewing numerous complications and side effects possibly related to defects in the pelvic mesh. The side effects include (1) erosion of the vaginal epithelium, (2) serious infection, (3) recurrence of the pelvic organ prolapse, (4) urinary incontinence, (5) pain during intercourse, (6) severe bleeding (7) bladder perforations, (8) pelvic hemorrhage, (9) bowel perforation, (10) blood vessel perforation, (11) vaginal scaring, (12) mesh erosion, (13) other mesh related complications and (14) dyspareunia. This article addresses other sources of medical literature discussing the same concerns.
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit
The Lyon Firm is reviewing and litigating cases arising from the Transvaginal Mesh. Dangerous side effects of Transvaginal Mesh include erosion of the vaginal epitheliuml, serious infection, Return of Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Urinary incontinence, Severe bleeding, and Dyspareunia
Cyberonics’ Vagus Nerve Stimulator Device Linked to 900 Deaths
Two contributing authors to the BMJ criticized "the FDA's approval and follow-up" of Cyberonics' vagus nerve stimulator device, which has been cited in "900 FDA-reported deaths." FDA spokeswoman Karen Riley said "the agency is engaged in an ongoing effort to improve overall medical device safety monitoring." In light of this recent report, noted expert Jerry Avorn, M.D., offered several recommendations for improving medical device safety. This articles summarizers the findings and Avorn's recommendations.
Defects Associated with DePuy ASR XL Acetabular Hip Implant System
In response to numerous complaints and new clinical data on the increased rate of defects associated with DePuy ASR XL Acetabular hip implant systems, DePuy Orthopedics voluntarily recalled all of its ASR XL Acetabular hip replacement devices, as announced by the company in August 2010.1
DEPUY HIP IMPLANT RECALL
On August 26, 2010, following approximately 400 FDA complaints since 2008 and new clinical data, Depuy Orthopedics, a division of Johnson & Johnson, announced the voluntary recall of two products for hip replacement surgery, ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System.The DePuy hip implants recall was motivated by the results of a study conducted by the British Medical Journal and published on March 2010. The new data indicated that 12% of the patients with ASR resurfacing device and 13% of those with DePuy ASR total hip replacement systems would likely need to undergo revision surgery within five years of implantation.2 This failure rate is twice the average industry rate.3
Medical Device Litigation 30(B)(5) Deposition Form Notice for Ohio Courts
This page is an example of a 30(B)(5) that was used in a medical malpractice case with overlaps with a medical device and "off label" use and promotion.
Chantix Linked to Increase in Cardiovascular Events
According to a Canadian Medical Journal report, Chantix, the best-selling prescription drug for smoking cessation, is linked to an increased risk of a heart attack, stroke or other serious cardiovascular event for smokers without a history of heart disease compared with smokers who did not use the drug.
New Warning Added to Gadolinium Products
FDA Changes Labeling on Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents- Risk of Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis. The affected products include: Ablavar (gadofosveset trisodium), Eovist (gadoxetate disodium), Magnevist (gadopentetate dimeglumine), Multihance (gadobenate dimeglumine), Omniscan (gadodiamide), Optimark (gadoversetamide injection), Prohance (gadoteridol)
Meridia Withdrawn: Ohio Lawyer
The weight loss drug Meridia is the most recent weight loss medication to be withdrawn from the U.S. Market. The extent of any liability is unknown at this time, but the data compiled in the most recent study recognized a 16 percent increased risk of myocardial infarcation and stroke for patients using the medication. The Lyon Firm is actively investigating the case and whether there is a causal connection with any reported injuries.
New Nationwide Heparin Recall
New Nationwide Heparin Recall: B. Braun Medical Inc. and FDA notified healthcare professionals of a nationwide recall because testing indicated a trace amount of oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS) contaminant. The affected lots were manufactured in 2008 and will be expiring on October 31, 2010 and November 30, 2010. The FDA had advised customers to discontinue use of any of the affected lots and reports any adverse events to the FDA. Certain lots of the popular blood thinner and clot medication Heparin were recalled due to a trace amount of oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS) contaminant. The affected lots were manufactured in 2008 and will be expiring on October 31, 2010 and November 30, 2010.
New Study Adds Safety Profile to Plavix
New Data on Clopidogrel and Omeprazole Offer Some 'Reassurance' on Cardiovascular Risk
Raptiva Medical Information and Internet Resources: Cincinnati Raptiva Lawyer
The following list identifies some of the most important Raptiva Medical terminology and available resources for more information. Joseph Lyon is a Cincinnati Raptiva lawyer and is available to discuss the case. All consultations are confidential and no fee is charged unless the case is successful.
Raptiva Withdrawn
On Monday, June 9, 2009, the psoriasis medication RAPTIVA was officially withdrawn from the U.S. market by its manufacturer, Genentech, Inc., stemming from risks that users may develop progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). PML is a rare and usually fatal viral disease that occurs almost exclusively in people with severe immune deficiency. According to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, there have been three confirmed and one possible case of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) in people taking Raptiva. Three of those people have died.
Preemption: Ohio Pharmaceutical Litigation
A product liability action for inadequate warning is not preempted by federal labeling requirements where the action seeks to impose labeling requirements that are identical to those of the federal statute. However, such an action is preempted to the extent that it seeks to impose "more elaborate or different" labeling requirements.
Clinical Research Supports Link Between MRI (gadolinium) and NSF
During Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRAs) , the gadolinium agents are injected into a patient’s vein to improve the quality of the MRI images,2 which usually requires two- or three- times of the usual dose of gadolinium.4 However, serious concerns on MRI and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, stemming from the use of gadolinium-based MRI dying agents, have appeared in the recent couple of years. This article identifies the symptoms of NSF and the clinical research supporting its link to gadolinium.
Reglan: Black Box Warning
In February 2009, the FDA required all the manufacturers of metoclopramide medication, such as Reglan, to put a black box warning onto the products labels to inform patients and doctors that the medication can cause severe and often irreversible movement disorder, called tardive dyskinesia. This article addresses such topics as: "what is Reglan?"; and "How does Reglan cause Tardive Diskenesia?".
Yaz and Weight Gain
Doctor Elizabeth B.Connell, M.D in her book “The Contraception Sourcebook”, describing the future trends of female oral contraception, suggested that newly developed types of progestin, such as drospirenon, which is one of the active ingredients in Yaz and Yasmin, may potentially be associated with the stable or even slightly lowered body weight.1 In looking at the available studies,it does appears more likely that women taking Yaz have lower chances to suffer from weight gain, than those, taking other oral contraceptives.
Yaz & Gallbladder Video
View Yaz & Gallbladder video that outlines side effects of yaz.
Yaz and Blood Clots
The drug Yaz (Yasmin and Ocella) has been the focus of recent lawsuits and medical criticism in the recent years for its alleged increased risks of blood clots formation. It has been alleged that the novel component drospirenone, used in Yaz, Yasmin, and its generic form Ocella, causes dehydraytion leading to an increase in blood clots. The science is still developing and this is currently unproven. This article discusses the common symptoms of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolus.
Yaz and Gallbladder Disease
There are hundreds of cases filed nationally alleging that the birth control Yaz (Yasmin and Ocella) has contributed to gallbladder disease in many younger women carrying few risk factors for this disease. This article discusses some of the science related to how Yaz may cause gallbladder disease.
Side Effects of Yaz
The Lyon Firm is actively investigating cases where consumers, following the use of the birth control pill Yasmin, have reported injuries and side effects due to “increased serum potassium" and "dehydration". The associated injuries may include symptoms of hyperkalemia and heart rhythm disturbances and a diagnosis of blood clots, stroke, heart attack, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, kidney failure, gallbladder disease and death.
Third Party Payor Causes of Action for Defective Pharmaceuticals
Health Plans, including insurers and Union Health Plans, are harmed when Pharmaceutical Products are placed on the formulary. This article addresses different causes of actions available to health plans who were harmed by having a defective pharmaceutical on its formulary, such as Vioxx, Avandia, Trasylol, and others.
Public Nuisance: Ohio Law
Public Nuisance is covered under Ohio Product Liabiltiy Act
Kentucky Product Liability Standard
Brief summation of the standard for proving strict liability under Kentucky Product Liability law.
Component Part Doctrine: Exceptions
This articles addresses the exceptions to the component part doctrine defense raised in product liability actions. The defense is typically reserved for bulk and raw material manufacturers, but recently the defense has become more common in automotive product liability cases involving supplier liability. Counsel should be aware that there are exceptions to the rule and take the appropriat steps to develop evidence in discovery to meet these execeptions.
What is the Component Part/Raw Material Doctrine?
This article discusses the "Component Part/Raw Material Doctrine" defense used in product liability actions and summmarizes the important factors that the Courts apply in determining whether a supplier or manufacturer is exempt from liability for a defect in the final product for which the part was assembled.
FDA Post Market Monitoring: More Oversight on Post Market Studies
Following Vioxx and other mass tort events, the Institute of Medicine, National Institute of Health, and Veterans Administration have proposed several new steps to balance the safety monitoring following the release of new drugs. A few of the recommendations include funding and staffing increases, improved adverse event reporting system, and greater authority for the FDA on post-marketing safety measures.
Destruction of a Product: Ohio Product Liability
A plaintiff may use circumstantial evidence to prove that a product is defective if the product that allegedly caused the harm was destroyed.
Joint and Several Liability: Ohio Product Liability
When two or more persons proximately caused the injury, the defendant to whom the jury attributes over fifty percent of the tortious conduct is jointly and severally liable for all compensatory damages that represent economic loss. Any defendant responsible for less than fifty percent of the tortious conduct is only liable for his proportionate share of the compensatory damages that represent economic loss.
Breach of Warranty Claims: Ohio Product Liability
Product liability claims for breach of warranty are governed by, and must be brought only under, sections of the Act dealing with conformance to representations made by manufacturers and suppliers.
Subsequent Remedial Measures: Ohio Product Liability
Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is admissible for any relevant purpose in product liability actions based on strict liability in tort.
Compliance With Safety Standards: Ohio Product Liability
Generally, a manufacturer's compliance or non-compliance with government safety standards is not necessarily a complete defense to proof of a strict liability claim. Similarly, compliance or noncompliance with industrial or professional safety standards does not constitute either a complete defense to or proof of a strict liability claim. With respect to product liability claims for harm caused by a drug or device, a manufacturer is not liable for punitive damages if the drug or device in question was manufactured, labeled and marketed in accordance with federal law. This bar on punitive damages does not apply if plaintiff can prove that the manufacturer fraudulently withheld from the government agency or misrepresented to the government agency material information known to be relevant to the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
State of the Art Defense: Ohio Product Liability
"A product is not defective in design or formulation if, at the time the product left the control of its manufacturer, a practical and technically feasible alternative design or formulation was not available that would have prevented the harm for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages without substantially impairing the usefulness or intended purpose of the product."
Substantial Alteration Defense
A manufacturer is not responsible for harm caused by a product if the product was substantially altered in a manner that was not reasonably foreseeable after it left the manufacturer's control.
Market Share Liability: Ohio Product Liability
Ohio law does not provide for market-share liability. Alternative liability may not be used to establish liability except when all possible tortfeasors are named and subject to the court's jurisdiction and the tortfeasors' products create a substantially similar risk of harm.
Comparative Fault in Ohio Product Liability Act
Assumption of risk may be asserted as an affirmative defense in product liability actions, and, whether express or implied, generally serves as a complete bar to recovery. Contributory negligence and other contributory tortious conduct may also be asserted as affirmative defenses to a PL action. A claimant's contributory tortious conduct does not bar the recovery of damages where it is no greater than the combined tortious conduct of the other parties from whom recovery is sought. When contributory fault is asserted as an affirmative defense, the court shall make findings of fact and the jury shall return a general verdict accompanied by interrogatories that provide the "percentage of tortious conduct attributable to all persons." The compensatory damages award is then reduced by the percentage of tortious conduct attributed to plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s Burden; Preponderance of the Evidence
It is the plaintiff's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defective aspect of the product was the proximate cause of the harm for which the plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages.
Strict Liability for Failure to Conform to Representation: Ohio Product Liability Act
Claimants may establish that a product is defective due to its failure to conform to a representation made by the manufacturer or supplier by showing that the product did not so conform, even where the manufacturer of supplier did not act "fraudulently, recklessly, or negligently in making the representation."
Failure to Warn Under Ohio Product Liability Act
Claimants may establish that a product is defective due to inadequate warning or instruction under the Act by showing that the manufacturer unreasonably failed to provide warning or instruction, at the time of marketing the product or after the product left the manufacturer's control, where the warning or instruction was required "in light of the likelihood that the product would cause harm of the type for which the claimant seeks to recover...and in light of the likely seriousness of that harm."
Design Defect Under Ohio Product Liability Act
Claimants may establish defective design or formulation under the Act by showing that the foreseeable risks associated with a product's design or formulation exceeded the benefits.
Manufacturer Strict Liability Under Ohio Product Liability Act
A manufacturer is subject to liability for compensatory damages based on a product liability claim brought under the Act only if (a) the claimant establishes that the product in question is "defective" and (b) the defective aspect of the product proximately caused the claimant harm. A claimant may prove that a product is defective by showing (a) defective manufacture or construction; (b) defective design or formulation; (c) inadequate warning or instruction; or (d) failure to conform to a representation made about the product.
Suppliers Are Liable Under Ohio Product Liability Act
Liability under the Act extends to manufacturers and suppliers. A manufacturer is defined as a person or entity "engaged in a business to design, formulate, produce, create, make, construct, assemble, or rebuild a product or a component of a product." A supplier is a person or entity that, in the course of business conducted for that purpose, either (1) "sells, distributes, leases, prepares, blends, packages, labels, or otherwise participates in the placing of a product in the stream of commerce"; or (2) installs, repairs, or maintains any aspect of a product that allegedly causes harm."
Ohio Statute of Limitations for Product Liability Claims
The SOL for a product liability claim based on product-related personal injuries is two years. A product-related action for damage to real property will be either a four-year or ten-year time limit. The cause of action generally accrues when the loss to person or property occurs, though there are discovery rules available under some circumstances. There is also a ten-year statute of repose, and a pending class action (either in Ohio or the Federal system) tolls the statute of limitations.
Ohio Product Liability Act: Causes of Actions
The Act defines a "product liability claim" as an action seeking compensatory damages from the manufacturer or supplier of a product "for death, physical injury to person, emotional distress, or physical damage to property other than the product in question." Damages must have arisen from: (1) the product's defective manufacture or construction; (2) the product's defective design or formulation; (3) inadequate warning or instruction associated with the product; OR (4) the product's failure to conform to a representation or warranty.
Tanning Bed Lawsuits
Tanning beds are now "known to cause cancer," at a far higher rate than previously warned. Its findings state that the risk of cutaneous melanoma is increased by 75% when the use of tanning devices starts before age 30. This is significant because the indoor tanning industry has often claimed that tanning beds are safe because the bulbs have more UVA radiation than UVB, says American Cancer Society Deputy Chief Medical Officer Len Lichtenfeld, MD.
Lead Paint Poisoning in Cincinnati Housing
Lead is a toxic metal. Lead based paint is one of the leading causes of lead poisoning in the United States. According to Cincinnati’s Community Development Housing Division, “one of the primary sources of Cincinnati lead poisoning is lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust found in deteriorating buildings.”
Symptoms of Lead Poisoning
The Lyon Firm is currently reviewing and accepting lead poisoning cases. Lead poisoning in children is diagnosed when the amount of lead in blood reaches 10 micrograms per deciliter or more. In order to prevent possible serious consequences of lead poisoning, it is of essential importance to recognize the signs and symptoms of lead poisoning in children as early as possible.Children are at significantly higher danger of lead poisoning because it can damage the developing nerves and brains of children. According to WebMD, chronic lead poisoning in children may cause learning problems and a decrease in IQ.
What is a biomechanical expert?
The biomechanical expert is often the most important expert in a crashworthiness or automotive defect case because the biomechanical expert brings together the science and medicine. The expert is responsible for analyzing the accident forces and how the body moves in relationship to those forces. The expert also demonstrates and offers opinions on injury causation and how the alleged defect may have contributed to or caused the alleged harm. This testimony is generally the link between the defect and the specific diagnosed injury.
Is Seat Belt Evidence Admissible in Ohio Crashworthiness Case?
Ohio law is clear that non-use of a seat belt is not admissible in most cases. However, there are exceptions. This brief note identifies the primary case on point addressing this type of evidence in an air-bag non-deployment case.
Are Seat Belt Suppliers Exempt From Liability Under Component Part Defense?
This article addresses whether seat belt suppliers are exempt from strict liability under the "Component Part Doctrine." This issue has not been specifically addressed by a Court, and in general it appears that the supplier would not be exempt. However, counsel should be diligent in developing evidence to counter the arguments that it applies. The article further discusses the type of evidence that should be developed.
Deposition Outline: Mechanic: Failure to Diagnose/ Fix Defective Suspension
The page includes a deposition outline used in a case involving the garage mechanic's failure and fix a defective suspension.
Defective Seat Belt System: Lap Belt/ Submarining Form Complaint
This page provides a form Complaint discussing some of the issues with lap belts and restraint system failures to minimize submarining in foreseeable accident.
Crashworthiness: Accepted in Ohio Product Liability Action
Ohio courts have recognized the principle of crashworthiness. The plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defect proximately caused or enhanced plaintiff's injuries.
Seat Belt Safety and Seat Belt Recall
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), seat belts save 9,500 lives in the USA each year. Laboratory test procedure no. 209 from NHTSA includes the general requirements for the seat belts assemblies. This articles addresses seat belt safety requirements and discusses specific seat belt recalls due to a failure to comply with seat belt safety. Statistically, over 390 million cars, trucks, buses and other vehicles have been recalled since 1966 because of the identified safety issues either voluntarily by manufacturers or after lawsuits.
Lap Belt Injuries: Submarining Due to Defective Seat/Belt Design
Lap seat belts and three-point seat belts are the most common types of safety belts used in the vehicles. A lap seat belt is a two-point strap, going over one’s waist/pelvic area, which should remain on the pelvis during accident sequences and is designed to hold a person in a car seat. Seat belt syndrome is often mentioned in the association with the lap seat belts use in the vehicles. According to CPSafety, lap belts are perfectly safe, when used to install a harnessed child safety restraint. However, they provide poor protection to the lap belted person, endangering neck, head, spine and internal organs. This articles addresses those risks and ways to limit them.
Effect of Bankruptcy on Automotive Product Liability Claims
In light of the well publicized bankruptcies of Chrysler and General Motors, this article identifies some of the preliminary issues that Plaintiffs may face. At this point, the bankruptcy court has identified different procedures for claim resolution, but this article provides background information that is applicable to these and future bankruptcy proceedings.
What is a violation of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act?
The article offers a short list of factors cited in the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act used to determine whether a sales practices act violates Ohio Consumer Sales law.
Who is a consumer under Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act?
This article offers a short summary of the definitions of consumer's that are protected under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.
“Sexting”...Criminal or Defamatory?
With the rising practice of "sexting" -i,e., the act of sending nude photos or sexually explicit content via text message -- lawmakers around the country have been enacting specific laws to address the conduct. This article addresses some of the criminal penalties, as well as the often overlooked Civil penalties that may result from "sexting."
Ohio Negligence Standard for Defamation is “Clear and Convincing”
In a 1987 decision, Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Publication Co., 512 N.E.2d 979, the Ohio Supreme Court stated: in private-figure defamation actions, where a prima facie showing of defamation is made by a plaintiff, the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant failed to act reasonably in attempting to discover the truth or falsity or defamatory character of the publication.
The Burden of Proof in Defamation, Slander, and Libel Cases
In defamation cases, the level to which the plaintiff must prove the negligence or recklessness of defendant's conduct varies with respect to how the plaintiff is classified. A defamation plaintiff may be classified as a private person, a public official, a public figure, or a limited-purpose public figure. See Brown at 220; Kassouf v. Cleveland City Magazines, 755 NE2d 976 (Ohio Ct. App.12 2001); Talley at 106. This articles addresses the ways in which the court may determine the status if the Plaintiff in order to apply the appropriate burden on proof.
Libel, Slander, Defamation and “Opinion” Statements” in Ohio
The U.S. Supreme Court decision of Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496 (1991) refused the invitation to constitutionalize the threshold of "what is defamatory" and left it as a matter to be determined by state law. The only major difference in Ohio law is with regard to the protected status of opinions. This article briefly discusses some of the federal and state case law on the the issue of slander, libel, defamation and the relationship with "opinion" statements.
Statute of Limitations for Libel, Slander, Defamation in Ohio
O.R.C. 2305.11(A) states that “[a]n action for libel [or] slander * * * shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued[.]” A cause of action for slander accrues from the time the slanderous remarks are spoken, whether the defamed person has knowledge of the fact or not. Lyons v. Farmers Ins. Group of Cos. (1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 448, 450, 587 N.E.2d 362. A cause of action for libel accrues when the written words are first published. Reimund v. Brown (Nov. 2, 1995), Franklin App. No. 95APE04-487, 1995 WL 643939, at * 3.
Premises Liability: Draft/ Form Complaint: Defective Deck
The page includes a form Ohio Complaint for a case involving the failure to maintain a deck railing resulting in the Plaintiff falling and becoming seriously injured. The draft includes some of the possible causes of action that may be available in such a case as well as lays out the format to draft the Complaint. Independent research should be done for each case and the law should be analyzed for its timeliness.
Statute of Repose: Ohio Medical Malpractice
In general, an action for medical malpractice must be commenced within four years of the act or omission, or it is otherwise barred. This article discusses some of the exceptions to this rule.
180 Letter: Cincinnati Medical Malpractice Lawyer
Ohio law provides for a 180 day extension for medical malpractice claims under some circumstances.
Statute of Limitations: Ohio Medical Malpractice
Except as otherwise provided in Revised Code 2305.113, an action upon a medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued.
Feres Doctrine, Iraq and VA Medical Malpractice
This legal memoranda addresses whether the Feres doctrine prevents an FCTA negligence / medmal claim on behalf of a discharged Iraq war veteran who received inadequate psychiatric care from a Veteran's Affairs hospital and subsequently committed suicide.
Medical Malpractice: Medication Error During Pregnancy
Medical Malpractice/ Medication Error: Benicar Causes Terminal Birth Defect Joseph M. Lyon, along with co-counsel, Mark B. Smith, successfully represented a family who lost their newest member at birth. It was alleged that the family doctor and obstetrician failed to properly monitor the mother's medications, and, specifically, the physicians failed to discontinue Benicar (a hypertensive medication recognized to cause birth defects). As a direct result of the physicians' negligence, the fetus suffered toxicity, and the baby was born with terminal birth defects following a full term pregnancy. After expert depositions, and two years of litigation, the case was resolved at mediation for a confidential amount.
Misdiagnosing Appendecitis
This articles discusses a common medical mistake made in emergency departments in Ohio emergency departments, the misdiagnosis of Appendicitis. The condition is easily treated when diagnosed early but may be deadly if a medical error is made.
Surgical Malpractice-Expanding the Standards for Use of Drug Eluting Stents
This articles addresses how cardiologist have expanded the standard of care for the use of drug eluting stents for financial gains.
Delay in Diagnosing Breast Cancer
This medical malpractice article address some of the legal issues presented in lawsuits arising from the delay in diagnosing breast cancer. Specifically the article addresses the Standard of Care for Evaluating and Diagnosing Breast Cancer, The American Join Commission Classification of Types of Breast Cancer, and Defenses in cases arising from the delay in diagnosing breast cancer.
Ohio Medical Malpractice Law
This article discusses the primary elements of medical malpractice law in Ohio. Specifically, the article addresses the elements to prove a medical malpractice case under Ohio Law:standard of care, proximate causation and damages.
List of Qualified Social Security Disabilities
Social Security evaluates a list of conditions that qualify for Social Security Disability. This article lists some of the most common conditions where Social Security finds disability.
Applying for Social Security Disability in Cincinnati
The main Social Security Disability office is located at 550 Main Street, room 2000 in downtown Cincinnati. The Social Security Office of Hearings and Appeals is located at 312 Elm Street, Suite 2100, also in downtown Cincinnati.
How does the Judge decide a Social Security Disability claim?
A Social Security Judge goes through the a certain analysis to make a decision about a claimant. This articles outlines the process the Judge will apply during the hearing process.
Social Security Appeal in Cincinnati
When Social Security reaches a decision on your case, they will send you a letter. If your application is approved, the letter will show the amount of your benefit and when your payments start. If your application is not approved, which is usually the case, the letter will explain why and tell you how to appeal the decision if you do not agree with it. If you disagree with a decision made on your claim, you should appeal it. The appeals process is complex and you should seek counsel to avoid missing any deadlines.
Ohio Motor Vehicle Accident Statistics
This article summarizes Ohio motor vehicle accident statistics from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, American Medical Association and Mother's Against Drunk Driving.
Tractor trailer accident statistics
This article summarizes statistics gathered from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, FARS, and The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Division. Despite added regulations, accidents involving large tractor trailers and semis remain dangerous and prevelent.
Cincinnati Construction Accidents
Construction accidents occur frequently in Cincinnati. This article discusses some common areas where these dangerous events occur.
Discovery of Prior Depositions Under Ohio Law
This is a brief analysis of whether prior depositions of a witness are discoverable under Ohio Law.
Punitive Damages in Ohio
This article addresses Punitive Damages in Ohio Post Philip Morris and Exon Decisions.
Expert Testimony in Ohio: Joseph M. Lyon
The following article and presentation was given at a Cincinnati Legal Conference. The title of the presentation was "The Weight of Expert Testimony".
AAJ Article by Joseph Lyon: Civil Plaintiff Themes in Public Criminal Defense
A Separate Piece in Seeking Justice; Civil Plaintiff Themes in Public Criminal Defense was an article published by AAJ. While Mr. Lyon no longer practices Criminal defense, the experience helped shape many of his skills he uses to provide representation to his many clients.
What is a Contingency Fee?
Contingency Fee - The fee is based upon a percentage that is only recovered in the event the case is successful. If the case is successful, the legal fees are an agreed upon percentage of the total recovery. If the case is not successful, the client is not charged a legal fee for the work. The Lyon Firm accepts most cases on contingency fees.
Ohio Tort Reform Damages Summary
In April 2005, Ohio Tort Reform took effect with Senate Bill 80, which substantively changed the landscape of Ohio personal injury law. This outline focuses solely on the damage limitations that went into effect. These limitations do not affect causes of action that accrued before the effective date of April 7th, 2005.