270.781.6500

Blog

03.05.2015

FDA orders drug makers to change labels on Low Testosterone drugs

Earlier this week, the Food and Drug Administration announced it is requiring the manufacturers of low testosterone drugs to change the labels of their products and to conduct further studies about the drugs. The FDA says some studies have indicated there is an increased risk of heart attack, stroke and even death while taking supplemental testosterone, while other studies have not. This has led the FDA to say that more research is needed by the manufacturers of the drugs as well as to require more warning labels on Low Testosterone drugs to better prepare doctors and patients for discussions about taking "Low T" drugs. The FDA specifically called out clinics offering to treat the "signs of aging" in men which are often believed to be linked to gradually decreasing testosterone in the body. While decreasing testosterone may seem to be the culprit of fatigue or other similar problems, there's not been enough research of the side effects of taking Low T drugs simply to fight the signs of aging. The FDA says the drugs should only be used in men who are suffering from low testosterone as a result of "disorders of the testicles, pituitary gland, or brain that cause a condition called hypogonadism." Health care providers should make patients aware of the risk of possible cardiovascular events and even death due to taking testosterone, the FDA says. Read More

03.03.2015

Federal Court refuses to remand Kentucky Uninsured Motorist insurance case

In Helton v. Lelion, a couple sued a driver who was operating a vehicle in which a tire became loose and hit their vehicle. The couple initially filed a negligence lawsuit in Wolfe County Circuit Court against the driver who lost her tire. The allegedly negligent motorist with the loose tire apparently did not carry liability insurance when the accident occurred. Because of this, the injured driver also demanded the full policy limits of her uninsured motorist coverage from her own auto insurer, as well as attorneys’ fees and interest. The defendants removed the uninsured motorist case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Lexington based on diversity of citizenship. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), a federal court may exercise such jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. In response, the couple filed a motion to remand the case back to a Kentucky state court. Although the plaintiffs agreed that the parties were diverse, they claimed that federal jurisdiction was improper because the amount in controversy did not exceed the statutory minimum. The injured driver also signed a stipulation that the entirety of the damages she sought were less than $75,000. Read More

03.03.2015

IRAs and Kentucky Inheritance Tax Law

Nathan Vinson By Nathan Vinson, Attorney English, Lucas, Priest & Owsley, LLP An Individual Retirement Arrangement (IRA) may be a vehicle available to Kentucky residents to avoid Kentucky’s inheritance tax.  The Kentucky inheritance tax is payable by the beneficiaries of a person’s estate, depending on what the beneficiary received and the relationship of the decedent to the beneficiary. “Class A” beneficiaries are exempt from the inheritance tax and include parents, surviving spouses, siblings (whether full or half), children (including adopted children and stepchildren), and grandchildren. “Class B” beneficiaries enjoy a partial exemption from the tax and include aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces (including by the half), daughter-in-laws, son-in-laws, and great-grandchildren (including those who are the grandchildren of adopted children and stepchildren). All other beneficiaries are considered “Class C” beneficiaries and are afforded a nominal exemption from the inheritance tax.  With the highest rate of Kentucky’s inheritance tax being 16%, Class B and Class C beneficiaries may take a big hit if they inherit any sizable amount from the decedent’s estate. Here is where planning opportunities arise using IRAs. Read More

03.01.2015

Life estates and Kentucky inheritance in estate planning

By Nathan Vinson, attorney English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP Life estates have long been an efficient and simple succession planning device for those who want to leave their homes to loved ones when they die. Here is a basic illustration of how it works:  Mom has survived Dad and owns her house outright.  She still lives in the home, which has a value of $300,000.  Mom wants to leave the home to her Son at her death.  So, Mom gives her house to the Son (the “remainder interest”) and reserves the right to live in the home during her life (the “life estate”). Read More

02.26.2015

Kentucky Court of Appeals says helmet is not integral part of motorcycle in accident dispute

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled in an unpublished opinion that a helmet is not an integral part of a motorcycle for purposes of uninsured motorist benefits. This issue was decided on in the case of Stallard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. The case involved a motorcycle owner who was injured in an accident while riding with a group of other bikers. The man was riding in the center of a group of about two dozen motorcyclists when the group of riders suddenly slowed. As the man attempted to avoid an accident with another motorcycle, he sustained serious injuries when another motorcyclist’s unsecured helmet bounced into his tire. When the motorcycle accident occurred, the motorcyclist carried uninsured motor vehicle (UM) insurance. Since the injured man was not hit by another vehicle, however, the motorcyclist’s insurer denied his insurance benefits claim. After that, the injured rider filed a lawsuit against his insurance carrier in Jefferson County Circuit Court. In response, the insurer filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming it was not required to provide benefits under the terms of the policy because the motorcyclist was not physically struck by another vehicle, nor was he injured by an integral part of another vehicle. The hurt rider countered that he should be compensated by his UM insurer because a motorcycle helmet is an integral part of a motorcycle. The trial court sided with the insurance company and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance carrier. Read More

02.25.2015

Risperdal case brings $2.5 million verdict against Johnson and Johnson

Risperdal Plaintiffs seeking a judgment against Johnson & Johnson, the makers of the drug Risperdal, saw a big victory this week out of Philadelphia. A jury sided with the family of an autistic boy who grew size 44 DD breasts after taking Risperdal in 2002. The Wall Street Journal, along with many other publications, wrote about the verdict, which was handed down on February 24, 2015. Growing breasts was one of several risks that Johnson & Johnson knew about but hid from the Food and Drug Administration, lawyers said. The condition is called gynecomastia. Some patients have been forced to undergo surgery to remove the breasts. Due to the widespread use of this drug, our firm believes there are many patients who have taken Risperdal and may very well have suffered similar problems, or other side effects. ELPO is accepting cases against Johnson & Johnson, the maker of Risperdal, representing children and their families who have been harmed by Risperdal. The drug treats the symptoms of psychiatric disorders. In addition to gynecomastia, there is an increased risk of stroke and diabetes for patients taking Risperdal. We want to help patients protect their rights, and encourage anyone who has taken Risperdal or who has a family member who has done so to contact us as soon as possible. Read More

02.12.2015

Kentucky Court Finds Virginia Law Applies in Tractor-Trailer Wreck Dispute

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has found that Virginia law applied in an uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage dispute arising out of a Kentucky tractor-trailer crash. In an unpublished opinion, a Virginia truck driver sued the insurance carrier for another motorist who struck his big rig head-on. The tractor-trailer wreck occurred on Interstate 65 in Jefferson County, Kentucky, in 2009. At the time of the collision, the other motorist was allegedly intoxicated and traveling in the wrong direction on the freeway. Following the accident, the truck driver settled with the at-fault driver’s liability insurer for the full policy limits of $25,000. After that, the semi-truck driver’s motor vehicle insurer waived its subrogation rights against the other driver.  The trucker then sought $25,000 in UIM benefits from his own auto insurer. The truck driver’s UIM insurer denied his claim because the at-fault driver was not an underinsured motorist according to the definition included in his insurance policy. In addition, the company claimed that Virginia law allowed it to offset the $25,000 payment the truck driver received from the other driver’s insurer against his potential UIM benefits. Because of this, the trucker’s insurer claimed that he was not entitled to receive additional payment as a result of his UIM coverage. Read More

02.09.2015

Shelby County Car Accident Case brings $1 million verdict for plaintiff

In Barnes v. Saulsberry, a man sued a taxi cab driver and the owner of the taxi cab following an accident on the side of the highway. The man was standing on the shoulder of a Tennessee highway waiting for emergency personnel to arrive following a traffic collision. While the man was outside his vehicle, a taxi cab struck a parked automobile. The parked vehicle collided with the man’s car, which then hit the man. As a result, the man allegedly sustained permanent and disabling harm. About one year after the automobile accident, the injured man filed a negligence lawsuit against the taxi cab driver and its owner in Shelby County, Tennessee. According to the man, the defendants caused him to suffer numerous broken bones, ongoing pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and more. Following a jury trial, the man received a damages award of $1 million. After unsuccessfully seeking a new trial, the defendants filed an appeal with the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Nashville. Read More

01.27.2015

Accident benefits provided by Kentucky Motor Vehicles Reparations Act

The Kentucky Motor Vehicles Reparations Act allows a policyholder to recover damages for an auto insurer’s denial of basic reparation benefits following a Kentucky car crash. In Risner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. , a man sued his insurance company for payment of benefits after he was apparently injured in a Lexington, Kentucky motor vehicle collision. Following the traffic accident, the man was treated by a local chiropractor. The injured man then sought reimbursement for his associated medical expenses from his auto insurer. About six months later, the insurance company notified the policyholder that it was denying coverage for certain medical bills he incurred as a result of the crash. In Kentucky, basic reparation benefits are typically used to pay the medical bills and certain other expenses of an individual who was hurt in a car accident, regardless of fault. After the man’s auto insurer discontinued his no-fault benefits, the injured man filed a lawsuit against the company in Rowan County Circuit Court. According to the man’s complaint, the motor vehicle insurer violated the Kentucky Motor Vehicles Reparations Act and the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. In addition, the hurt man accused his insurance company of negligence, breach of contract, fraud, and numerous other claims. As a result, the policyholder asked the court to award him both compensatory and punitive damages. In general, punitive damages are only appropriate when a court seeks to punish a party and deter similar conduct in the future. Read More

01.20.2015

Lexington Federal Court Dismisses Claims Against Retail Store Employee in Product Liability Action

In Simmerman v. Ace Bayou Corp., the parents of a three-year-old sued several parties following the death of their child, who became trapped in a beanbag chair. The parents filed a product liability action against the manufacturer of the allegedly defective chair, the department store where they purchased the item, and the manager of the store in Fayette County Circuit Court. In response to the lawsuit, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Lexington based upon diversity of citizenship. In general, a defendant may remove a case to federal court as long as the defendants are from different states than the plaintiff and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Next, the parents filed a motion to remand the case back to Fayette County Circuit Court. Although the store manager was a resident of Kentucky, the remaining corporate defendants have main corporate headquarters in other states. According to the plaintiffs, the Kentucky manager destroyed diversity and required the case to be tried in state court. The store manager, however, countered that she was fraudulently joined in the case solely to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction. Read More