Jul 23, 2012 | Brain Injury/Head Trauma, Uncategorized
New research shows inhibiting certain enzymes decreases the severity of traumatic brain injury (TBI), providing a target for future treatments. This research was published July 19th in the Brain. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is most often caused by a blow to the head sustained in a fall, car or truck accident, or any other accident.
Professor Medcalf said the researchers identified two enzymes, known as t-PA and MMP-3, that act together to promote injury severity following TBI.
“The enzyme t-PA, well known for its ability to remove blood clots, also has a healthy and very important role in supporting learning and memory functions in everyday life. However, previous research has shown that in TBI cases, its presence makes the injury much worse,” Professor Medcalf said.
t-PA was once thought to worsen the injury, but its inhibition triggers the activation of MMP-3, the enzyme which does the damage.
“The activity of naturally occurring enyzmes is controlled by specific enzyme inhibitors,” Professor Medcalf said.
“Unexpectedly, we found that the process of t-PA inactivation by one of its natural inhibitors actually contributed to brain injury, because it leads to the activation of MMP-3.
“Now we know that if we block MMP-3 with an inhibitor, we can protect the brain following TBI,” Professor Medcalf said.
“We now have a new and promising therapeutic target for the treatment of human TBI, which has not, so far, been significantly improved by pharmacological intervention,” Professor Rosenfeld said.
The Traumatic Brain Injury Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know have been injured or killed by a traumatic brain injury, seek help from an experienced brain injury attorney like those at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower. Call us at 877-374-5999, or contact us at this link, to schedule a free, private consultation. We can help you evaluate your claim and get you the recovery you deserve.
Jul 20, 2012 | Trucking/Tractor-Trailer Accidents, Uncategorized
The most common type of tractor trailer accident is when the tractor trailer fails to stop and the tractor trailer rear ends another vehicle that may have slowed or stopped. These accidents have a number of causes including:
- The tractor trailer truck driver may have fallen asleep or have been drowsy, in which case the tractor trailer carrier may be liable if they did not follow regulations involving sleep
- The tractor trailer may have been overweight, in which case the tractor trailer carrier or whatever loader may be liable
- The tractor trailer’s brakes may have been negligently maintained
- The tractor trailer may have been speeding
The Trucking Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know has been injured or killed in a trucking accident, you need the help of a serious trucking attorney like those at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower. Review our credentials, make sure we are right for you, and then call us at 877-374-5999, or contact us at this link, to schedule a free, private consultation. We can help you evaluate your claim and get you the recovery you deserve.
Jul 20, 2012 | Trucking/Tractor-Trailer Accidents, Uncategorized
Wednesday a man was killed on Highway 22 in Horry County in an accident involving a pickup truck and a dump truck. The dump truck had been driving well below the speed limit due to mechanical issues, and the pickup truck ran into the back of the dump truck. The driver of the dump truck was not injured, but the driver of the pickup truck was killed.
The Truck Accident Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know have been injured or killed in an accident involving any type of commercial truck or other vehicle, you need serious attorneys. The truck accident attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower know how to handle truck accident cases and are ready to fight to get the compensation you deserve. Browse our website, review our credentials, and then call us at 877-374-5999, or contact us at this link, for a free private consultation to evaluate your claim.
Jul 19, 2012 | Products, Uncategorized
Products are typically recalled when manufacturers recognize that they have realized they have released products to the public that are likely to injure members of the public. When you have been injured by such products, you are very likely entitled to relief from the product’s manufacturer. Contact us immediately to be made whole from your injury. Below are products that have recently been recalled.
(more…)
Jul 19, 2012 | Products, Uncategorized
Medical technology company Stryker has recalled their Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck stems hip implants due to concerns about possible “fretting and corrosion at the modular neck junction.” These problems with the hip implant can cause local tissue issues in the area around the implant leading to pain and swelling. Stryker does not recommend revision surgery for all individuals with the Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implants, but as with all implants, if you are having trouble with the implant area, see your doctor.
To determine if you have a Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II hip implant speak with your surgeon or review your medical records.
You may be entitled to compensation from Stryker if:
- Your surgeon advised you to have the hip replaced
- You have high cobalt or chromium levels in your body
- You have significant pain or swelling in your hip
- You have a pseudo tumor at the hip
The Product Recall Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or a loved one was injured due to the Rejuvenate or ABG II hip implants, or any other hip implant, you may have a claim against the hip implant’s manufacturer. Our experienced attorneys are ready to fight for you. Please browse our website, review our credentials, and call us at 877-374-5999 or contact us at this link to schedule a private consultation at no cost to you. We’re here to help.
Jul 18, 2012 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation
In Johnson v. Rent-A-Center, the South Carolina Supreme Court heard two workers’ compensation issues, affirming the Court of Appeals, presumably to clarify the law. The issues were:
- Whether an employee had a temporary total disability when she was medically able to be a phlebotamist, but after a reasonably thorough job search finding only jobs that combined the functions of a phlebotamist and a CNA, was unable to find suitable employment? Supreme Court: She did have a temporary total disability.
- Did an employee constructively refuse light duty work when he or she was never actually offered light duty work and voluntarily resigned after being offered only full duty work? Supreme Court: constructive refusal of light duty work is not a recognized defense to total temporary disability, but even if the Court assumed it was, there was no constructive refusal of light duty work because there was no offer of light duty work.
Total Temporary Disability
Disability is defined in section 42-1-120 as an “incapacity because of injury to earn wages, which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment.” The court had previously fleshed out this section in Shealy v. Algernon Blair, Inc., 250 S.C. 106, 113, 156 S.E.2d 646, 649–50 (1967). Shealy places the burden on the employee to prove that
- the employee “failed [to obtain employment] because of an injury produced handicap,” and
- the employee “made reasonable efforts to obtain employment.”
The Supreme Court explained that under the first prong above that the jobs must exist for the employee in actuality, rather than in theory and that the jobs must be within the employee’s geographical area.
Under the second prong, the Supreme Court affirmed that the employee had made reasonable efforts to find employment on the basis of the employee’s testimony that she had put in applications at 5 hospitals and received no offers.
Constructive Refusal of Light Duty Work
The Supreme Court made clear that constructive refusal of light duty work was under current law no defense to total temporary disability, but they discussed the issue anyway. A few important points:
- When the employee was first placed on a lift-restriction, the employer refused to let the employee return to work
- Employee left the employer because of the employer assigned her to work with the person who caused the employee’s injuries, not because she refused to do the work offered
- Refusal of light duty work was not even an issue in this claim because employee was on full release when she first returned to work with the employer
Thus, employer’s argument that the employee constructive refused light duty work fails to make sense. If the refusal occurred at employee’s resignation, she was on release, so light duty work isn’t an issue, and, if the refusal had occurred when she couldn’t find work after a few months of employment as a CNA/Phlebotamist, it is “highly speculative” that the employer (Rent-A-Center) would have offered the employee light duty work.
The whole opinion is provided below.
The Workers’ Compensation Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
The SC workers compensation lawyers at Reeves, Aiken, & Hightower know the South Carolina worker’s compensation system and are ready to get you the recovery you deserve. Browse our website, examine our credentials, and compare us to anyone else. Then call us at 877-374-5999 or contact us at this link for a private consultation.
(more…)
