Welcome to HurstInjuryLaw.com, the personal blog of William W. Hurst, Attorney at Law in Indianapolis. This is where Bill will post his research notes, case studies, and legal news for public viewing. Feel free to browse the site and use any content you find for your own blogs so long as you properly cite our site. For information on Bill's legal practice, please visit his business website at BillHurst.com.

Archive for February, 2012


On July 1, 2011 an Indianapolis Metropolitan police officer was hospitalized after she was involved in a crash on the “Far South side” while responding to another traffic accident.  The officer had lights and sirens activated when she drove through a red light at Southport and Bluff roads and was struck by a northbound Ford Explorer at about 4:30 p.m.   http://www.indystar.com/article/20110701/news02/107010373/indianapolis-police-officer-hurt-afternoon-crash

The following Wednesday, July 6, 2011 on the “Near Northside” of Indianapolis a Fishers woman was injured in a car crash with an Indianapolis Metropolitan police officer.  The Fishers woman, who has not been identified, had minor injuries and both were being treated at Methodist Hospital.  The officer was on a dispatched run and traveling south on Fall Creek Parkway when a 2006 Dodge Durango exited the parking lot of the BP gas station and pulled into the officer’s path of travel.  After impact both cars struck a tree on the west side of Fall Creek Parkway.  The officer was not using his lights and sirens at the time of the crash.  http://www.indystar.com/article/20110706/NEWS/110706018/IMPD-officer-injured-crash-Near-Northside

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department’s General Order #4.16 V. “Emergency Operations” states that:

Police Department vehicles must be operated 1. Under emergency conditions only when the officer is responding to a reported or confirmed emergency condition or when properly operating under pursuit conditions.  With regard to that, the officers must refer to a general order regarding vehicle pursuits for definition. 2. When operating a police vehicle under emergency conditions, the emergency lights and sirens must be utilized. 3. An officer may disregard an automatic traffic control or stop sign only when responding to an emergency situation under pursuit conditions.  Even then the officer must approach the intersection with caution and be prepared to stop.  The officer may proceed only when it is safe by clearing the intersection lane by lane.  The police vehicle must be prepared to take evasive action and brake if necessary.  In all cases the police vehicle operator must proceed with caution.

Under certain conditions police officers may make “silent runs”.  A silent run is the operation of a police vehicle under emergency conditions utilizing emergency lights but no sirens or other audible signal.  Silent runs are authorized for robberies, burglaries, burglaries in process or a situation in which the officer determines through his training experience requires silent run response to avoid alerting the criminal.  A police officer on a silent run still must stop at all stop signs and traffic signals and proceed safely.  In all instances he must operate his vehicle with caution and at a reasonable speed without endanger the life and property of others.  The violation of these rules may result in liability for the Police Department involved.

It is the policy of  the Indianapolis’ Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) to require all officers to operate the police vehicles with due regard for the safety of others.  This is required under General Order 4.16 whether it is a marked or unmarked police vehicle.  The police officer’s must exercise due caution at all times regardless of the nature of the run for the protection of the life and property for himself and for others.  Department personnel in both off-duty and on-duty status are prohibited from operating any city-owned vehicle after taking any “restricted” prescription medication, alcohol or intoxicant.  Indeed officers are prohibited from operating any city vehicle with any traceable amount of alcohol determined by chemical test.  The operation of a vehicle with a BAC above .08 and/or arrest for DWI for the first offense results in a ten day suspension, second violation; a thirty day suspension and on a third offense the officer will be dismissed.  Mandatory alcohol counseling is an additional requirement for any and all violations.

The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department recognizes that it is inevitable that police vehicles will be involved in accidents.  The IMPD requires that all vehicle traffic crashes to police vehicles will be investigated thoroughly and reported properly according to procedures established in General Order 7.4.  Under this general order, the police officer must contact the communication center immediately, who dispatches the necessary personnel and assistance to the location.  The vehicle must not be moved. When there are personal injuries, all injured parties will be sent to Wishard Hospital for treatment unless medical personnel  determine it necessary to transport to a hospital which is closer.

It is the responsibility of a designated IMPD crash investigator to investigate and report all details of an accident.  In Indianapolis, there is an Accident Review Board which was established under the direct authority under the Indianapolis Chief of Police as set forth in department’s rules and regulations.  The administrative body is responsible for review of all crashes, reports and investigations involving motor vehicles under the control of the police department.  Formal hearings and administrative reviews may be conducted in accordance with established procedures to determine compliance with the department’s orders, rules and policies.  While not a disciplinary board, the Accident Review Board will make specific recommendations for disciplinary action to the Disciplinary Board of Captains.  The Accident Review Board will make a judgment as to whether the accident was preventable or not preventable.

Despite all the rules and regulations “high speed” police chases create an extremely dangerous situation for pedestrians and motorists.  While it is the responsibility of local law enforcement to apprehend criminals to ensure the safety of the general public, when the pursuit of criminals puts innocent third parties in danger it is up to the officer making the “run” to make a decision that serves the greater good and the safety of the community.  Sometimes the “wise” decision is to ”break off” the “run” or ”chase”.  Often after these accidents there are many questions must be answered.  Why did police continue to pursue the vehicle; when the danger to the community was apparent? Did the police officer fail to comply with the polices, rules and regulation of his department?  Only an experienced personal injury lawyer can help you with obtaining this information and evaluating it.

If you are injured in a police chase crash or squad car accident, you should consult with an experienced personal injury attorney who has represented persons seriously injured in similar circumstances.  Whether the incident involves officers from Indianapolis Police Department, Marion County Sheriffs Deputies or police officers from other police agencies, our office can help.  Contact our office for a free consultation with an experienced accident lawyer at (800) 636-0808 and see our website at  www.BillHurst.com

www.indianapolisabogado.com

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company is Asia’s biggest drug maker and they face tens of thousands of lawsuits in the United States courts over allegations that the Actos diabetes drug causes bladder cancer.  This drug was marketed for Takeda in the United States by the Indianapolis based Eli Lilly & Company from July, 1999 until March, 2006 and in several other companies up until this year. This drug, coupled with diet and exercise, was used as therapy to improve glycemic control for Type II diabetics.

U.S. regulators found in June that an analysis of a company sponsored study showed that some users of Actos faced an increased risk for developing the potentially fatal disease.  There has been other evidence linking Actos to an increased risk of other serious side effects such as blindness and macular edema. Personal Injury Attorneys across the nation are indicating that they are getting calls every day and believe that it may result in as many as 10,000 lawsuits.

Takeda officials this year recalled Actos, its top-selling drug, off the market in Germany and France because of the linkage to increased cancer risk.  The medication had sales of 4.8 billion in the last fiscal year and was 27% of the Japan based company’s revenue.

Pioglitazone hydrochloride, (Actos) was developed by Takeda and was distributed in markets since 1999.  Actos oral tablets were marketed as a medication which would help the body use insulin more efficiently.  There were a lot of warnings and contraindications that accompanied the drug and users were cautioned to have regular blood tests to monitor potential damage to their liver.  However, this list did not include the increased risk of cancer.  According to a December 1, 2011 article by the Associated Press in the Indianapolis Star, Eli Lilly, one of the distributors, lobbying costs in the third quarter of 2010 approached 2.3 million focusing on patent reform, trade issues and hospital discounts.  Actos sales in this article in 2010 were shown to be approximately 3.35 billion dollars with the drug going generic in 2012.  It is noted that not withstanding Takeda’s patent for Actos actually expiring last January, 2011, Takeda, and possibly Lilly and Glaxos Smith Klein, may be battling the forthcoming tide of Actos lawsuits.  Despite that Takeda has already agreed to several generic drug makers on the future marketing of a generic form of Actos.

Both Germany and France have suspended sales of Actos.  The suspension was effective July 11, 2011.  The Food and Drug Administration recently released a safety alert and required a label change for Actos regarding the risk of bladder cancer for users taking the medication for more than one year or taking it in the highest dose.  According to the FDA announcement, Actos can lead to a 40% increased risk of bladder cancer based on a study of more than 200,000 patients with Type II diabetes.  Since 2007 the competing diabetes drug Avandia was shown to increase the risk of heart attack the Actos sales have escalated to approximately 4.3 billion in 2010 alone.

The France Medicine Agency has suspended the sales of Actos after reviewing a cohort study conducted by the French Health Insurance linking Actos to bladder cancer.  Drug regulators in Germany have also disallowed new prescriptions for Actos pending further investigation.  The European Medicine Agency began a review of Actos in March, 2011 which has not yet concluded but may ultimately yield similar findings.  Between January and October of 2010, 2.3 million patients filled prescriptions for Actos according to the FDA.  Based on the 40% increase of risk the number of people who may develop bladder cancer since the drug’s approval in 1999 could easily number in the thousands.

On December 29, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all Actos lawsuits pending in Federal Courts nationwide be consolidated and centralized in the nearest District Court for the Western District of Louisiana and assigned to the Honorable Rebecca Dougherty.  This is a consolidation of all Actos lawsuits filed by individuals alleging that the Type II diabetes medication caused them to develop bladder cancer.  When reaching the decision to consolidate the Actos lawsuits the Panel determined that there were common questions of fact to warrant the transfer of these actions into one Federal District Court for coordination, consolidation and pretrial proceedings thereby eliminating duplicative discovery and consistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.  At that time there were only a few, perhaps less than 20, Actos lawsuits currently pending in Federal Courts nationwide.  All of these lawsuits were filed after the June, 2011 determination by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that Actos users are at increased risk for developing bladder cancer. 

 www.webmd.com/cancer/bladder-cancer/news/20110616/new-bladder-cancer-warning-for-diabetes-drug-Actos

 www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm259150.htm

http://www.ibj.com/takeda-lilly-may-face-thousands-of-suits-over-actos-cancer-claims/PARAMS/article/31087

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-31/takeda-suits-on-actos-diabetes-drug-combined-in-one-louisiana-court.html

The side effects of Actos at http://diabetes.emedtv.com/Actos/side-effects-of-actos.html 

For several previously known side effects of Actos, including problems such as headaches, sinus infection, and upper respiratory infections.  More serious side effects would include low blood sugar, rapid weight gain, vision changes, pain, tooth problems, sore throat, water gain, edema.  Actos was also promoted as increasing the good cholesterol and decreasing triglycerides.  www.Actos.com

If you or a loved one has experience bladder cancer as a result of taking Actos,  contact our office or call William “Bill” Hurst at (800) 636-0808 for a free consultation.  Our office has successfully represented thousands of clients in .

www.indianapolisabogado.com

Semi-truck, tractor- trailer and commercial vehicle accidents in the United States continue to rise.  The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that over 100,000 people sustain serious personal injuries, and over 5,000 people die in these crashes annually.  The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) compiles statistics and reports for truck-driving accidents in the United States and attempts to identify and correct hazards that face truck drivers.  Even insignificant driving errors can result in consequences where a small vehicle is in a collision with an eighteen wheeler (18-wheeler) which can result in catastrophic injuries.  Many drivers fail to understand that trucks have limited field of vision on their right side and that large trucks traveling at high speeds cause a draft which can pull a vehicle into the danger zone or cause an automobile to over correct and run into the truck or off the road.  www.todaystrucking.com and www.auto-accidentresource.com/statistics.html

In Indiana, investigation of truck accident statistics involving 18-wheelers, semi-tractor trucks or large trucks have been compiled by the Center of Criminal Justice Research www.criminaljustice.iupui.edu based upon National Highway Traffic Safety Administrative studies as well as the Indiana State Police Automated Report Information Exchange System.  In prior years, one in every six fatal traffic collisions involved large trucks.  This was based on traffic collision trends between 2004 and 2008.  The summer months show the highest number of total large truck collisions and the highest number of fatal collisions involving them.  Over 50% of the collisions occurred on interstates with the least likely roads for them to occur on Indiana County Roads.  32% of the fatal collisions reviewed occurred on State Roads and 30% on Interstates.  Between 2004 and 2008 there was a gradual increase in involving fatal collisions occurred.  The Indiana Officers Standard Crash Report requires investigating officers to indicate the primary contributing factor for the collision.  In fatal collisions involving large trucks that were reviewed by the Center, 27% of the large truck drivers contributed to the occurrence compared with 64% for other vehicular types.  Large trucks were 2.5 times more likely than drivers of other vehicles to be attributed to the occurrence of the collision in instances where distracted driving was listed as the primary factor.  In total collisions between 2004 and 2008, involving large trucks where speeding was a factor, the large truck involved was reportedly speeding about half of the time.  www.in.gov/It is sad, but in most large truck, semi-tractor trailer, 18-wheeler accidents involving an automobile, it is the car and it’s passengers that come out the loser.  There have been numerous examples of this in recent times in Indiana.  On March 1, 2011 a semi-truck that was driven by a 41year-Indiana operator was issued a citation for failure to control his vehicle after he rear-ended a pickup truck on I-77 South.  The driver of the pickup truck was transported to St. Joseph hospital and all of the passengers in the pickup truck from Waverly, Indiana were taken to Candem Park Memorial Hospital after the accident.  In this case, the injuries were not life threatening, however in a Jackson County, Indiana accident on February 25, 2011, a Michigan man was killed on I-65 in Jackson County.  The police described this as a horrific crash.  On that date, three people called to report a speeding driver, weaving along the road just south of Seymour.  This car collided around the 37-mile marker in Jackson County with a semi-truck.  The driver of the car was thrown from the vehicle and pronounced dead at the seen.  The driver of the semi-truck, who was not at fault, had no injury whatsoever.  In a recent Indianapolis collision between an automobile and a semi-tractor trailer, an Indianapolis Public School thirteen-year old girl was killed.  The child died at the seen of the accident.  This accident happened on the Southwest side of Indianapolis.

Clearly truck drivers are professional and generous and some of the best drivers on the road, but the areas behind and beside large trucks are hazardous areas where drivers should proceed with great caution.  It’s clear when semi trailers are involved in accidents with smaller vehicles, the forces generated by the collision are so tremendous that serious injuries and death often occur.

If you or a loved one has been involved in a semi-tractor trailer accident resulting in serious injury contact our office or call William “Bill” Hurst at (800) 636-0808 for a free consultation.  Our office has successfully represented thousands of clients injured by Big Rigs.

www.indianapolisabogado.com

Copyright © 2011 William W. Hurst. All rights reserved.
Bill Hurst is a partner in Mitchell, Hurst, Dick & McNelis, LLC.
Use of the web site does not create an attorney-client relationship.