Corporate America needs protection from trial lawyers!?

So goes the tort reform mantra. Trial lawyers are victimizing corporations; which is causing job loss; which is ruining the economy; which is leading to higher prices; which is causing Wall Street uncertainty; which is leading to all around chaos.

I have worked for Corporate America and I have worked for lawyers. All the lawyer jokes aside, I am happy to no longer be working in the moral ambiguity of Corporate America.

Let’s take today’s Corporate citizenship example. Pfizer, Inc.

Recently, Pfizer agreed to pay fines of a record amount, $2.3 billion, for hiding off-label drug marketing practices. That would be the practice of selling drugs for uses that the FDA has not approved them for or, in some cases, uses that the FDA has specifically prohibited. Now, Pfizer investors are suing Pfizer saying that the Corporate Pharma “promised” it would stop its off-label marketing practices, but $2.3 billion later proves otherwise.

Also, just unsealed yesterday, is a complaint filed against Pfizer for the marketing of its drug, “Vfend” (voriconazole); an antifungal medication approved for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis and candidemia. Pfizer requested FDA approval to market the drug as “empiric therapy” as well. Empiric therapy is the medical practice of initiating treatment before an actual diagnosis can be made based upon laboratory or other objective studies. Antibiotics and some antifungals are often prescribed, quite correctly, by physicians based only upon their judgment of a patient’s symptoms. Pfizer wanted the ability to market Vfend on this broad basis so that physicians would prescribe it more often and, thus, increase Pfizer’s profits proportionally.

The FDA refused to allow Pfizer to market Vfend as an empiric therapy. So, what did Pfizer do? You guessed it, they marketed Vfend for broad use anyway. Why would a corporation specifically violate FDA regulation?

Vfend was approved for the limited use of treating diagnosed fungal infections in 2002. Certainly, the fact that Pfizer made $825 million in 2010; $798 million in 2009; and $743 million in 2008 off the drug may have played into their decision. Also, Vfend was designed to replace an antifungal, Diflucan, for which Pfizer was losing its US patent. Diflucan had been generating annual sales for Pfizer averaging $1.1 billion per year – an amount they stood to lose if they could not replace Diflucan with a substitute.

The current lawsuit brought by the US government was the result of company “whistleblowers”; former employees of Pfizer who have provided information to the US government suggesting that Pfizer’s off-label marketing resulted in much higher sales and this resulted in a fraud upon Medicare and Medicaid.

Sour grapes from some disgruntled employees? Let’s take a look at those employees; both of whom reportedly resigned from Pfizer:

Catherine Brown was Senior Marketing Manager at Pfizer and had been employed by them from 1996 to 2005. She holds multiple degrees in science and business and she was, in fact, “Representative of the Year” in 1998. She resigned from Pfizer in 2005

Bernard Vezeau was a Senior Product Manager on the “Vfend Marketing Team”. Mr. Vezeau went to West Point, was a Captain in the US Army and held a Master’s degree in Business Administration. He worked for Pfizer between 1989 and 1992; and was rehired by them in 2003.

The complaint brought by the US government gives insight into what allegedly occurred. Apparently, Pfizer was using a study, “the 608 Study” to substantiate its claims that Vfend was effective in treating broad categories of fungal infections. Notably, Pfizer claimed that Vfend was effective in treating a very aggressive and potentially lethal fungal pathogen, C. glabrata. The problem explained in the complaint in detail is that the 608 study results were, first, of a small patient population and, second, the results were substantially manipulated by Pfizer in an effort to cause the study to demonstrate an effectiveness in treating broad categories of fungal infection when it, in fact, was not effective.

While Pfizer marketed Vfend as having an “extended spectrum” and recommending physicians use Vfend “at the earliest clinical suspicion of a fungal infection”, respected medical journals condemned these assertions. The New England Journal reviewers stated that the 608 study “significantly obfuscate the presentation of results” and found the study “a bit deceptive”. The Lancet published comments by a noted and respected expert in fungal infections as finding the results of the 608 study to be “most perplexing” and seeming “seriously flawed”. In English, they did not believe Pfizer’s study and, if the allegations prove to be true, these experts had good reason.

What did Brown and Vezeau do wrong? Well, from Pfizer’s perspective, they insisted on clarification of the study results and asked for substantiation for claims that Vfend was effective in treating broad categories of fungal infections, most notable a life threatening fungal like, C. glabrata. Pfizer’s medical director, Dr. Dr. Schlamm, allegedly complained that Mr. Vezeau, was asking too many questions about the 608 study.

Now, Pfizer stands accused, yet again, of marketing drugs for uses NOT approved by the FDA. In addition, they are accused of manipulating scientific studies and opinion – for what? To maximize profits.

So, ask yourself: who needs protection from whom?

There are so many things for which I am thankful.

I am thankful to have a wonderful wife who is the very best part of me. I am thankful for my “children” – a combination of 2 lovable mutts and 4 cats (who I have grown to like). I am able to live in the Florida country and I employed by some of the most wonderful men and women with whom I have ever been permitted to work. I am truly fortunate.

Each morning during the work week, I try to create my own or find a wise person’s words of wisdom to share with my co-workers. Given that it is Thanksgiving, I thought I would do the same with all of you. Let me thank you for your kind indulgence in allowing me:

• Be thankful for your family; for they will always be there for you.
• Be thankful for each and every moment.
• Be thankful for your friends; for they like you even when you do not like yourself.
• Be thankful for those who have lighted the flame of inspiration within you.
• Be thankful for injuries done to you; for they cause you to cherish the kindness of people that much more.
• Be thankful for the 86,400 seconds given to you each day; do not waste them, but spend them wisely in nurturing others.
• Be thankful you can give without remembering and receive without forgetting.
• Be thankful you live in a country in which freedom still exists and individuality is still valued.
• Be thankful if you have a roof above your family’s head and food upon the table. Sadly, so many do not.
• Be thankful for the opportunities given to you to help others.
• Be thankful that you can be thankful.

Our best wishes go to each and everyone for a safe and joyous holiday.

Increase your possibility for blood clots – take Yaz birth control.

That would be bare truth in advertising were Bayer AG willing to be honest about its block buster contraceptive medication that generated over $1.5 billion in sales last year.

Another truth in advertising for the Yaz drug maker? We were just kidding when we claimed that Yaz was good for clearing up acne and treating all forms of PMS symptoms. We said it, but we did not mean it and, oh yeah, Yaz was never approved for those uses.

In an email discovered during the litigation that has been filed against Bayer, a company official encouraged sales representatives to propose that doctors prescribe Yaz for unapproved, off-label use:

“…what percentage of your patient population suffers from” symptoms common to PMS, versus the more severe form of the disorder, and to seek information on “what they think the impact of Yaz will be.”

Yasmin and Yaz were never approved for treatment of common PMS symptoms.

In another email, a sales representative suggests that a noted gynecologist: “…definitely will mention the off-label benefits of our products.”

We have been writing since early 2009 about Bayer’s less than responsible commercials that used attractive, successful appearing women to promote its drugs Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella while using glitzy advertising to obfuscate the lack of FDA approval for some of its uses and to hide its sometimes lethal side effects.

An upcoming meeting at the FDA, on December 8, 2011, is designed to discuss the fate of oral contraceptives and the studies that have been conducted about them. At least one of the leading studies, conducted by Juergen Dinger then director of the Center for Epidemiology and Health Research, has come under scrutiny. Dr. Dinger is a former employee of the company initially marketing the Yasmin line of oral contraceptives and there have been emails discovered that cast some questionable light on the independence of the study. For example an executive at the company sent a 2005 email talking about the risk of “VTE” and “ATE” (referring to clots in users):

“One major reason for providing only tables and a synopsis is that we do not want to imply that we have a VTE problem but emphasize the fact that the study results indicate that Yasmin’s VTE/ATE is comparable to other” contraceptives.

Like buying “ghost writers”, some companies have sponsored “studies” of their products with the sole goal of supporting the safety of the product, rather than discovering independent, objective findings about their products.

Sadly, $1.5 billion buys a great deal of favorable opinions and provides more than enough motivation for companies to discover supportive findings in any study they conduct.

As I have written many times before, I believe in the jury system, but it requires a well-informed jury, given all the facts and evidence, to arrive at a just decision. Based upon my own research and the below discussion, I must conclude that, more likely than not, the jurors in the case of Hunter v Phillip Morris resulted in a less than full disclosure of the evidence relating to the outrageous conduct of the tobacco industry.

I have read many, many of the documents that comprise those involving Big Tobacco’s evolution in the development and production of cigarettes; evolution and production because what most people think of as tobacco was abandoned by cigarette manufacturers decades ago. What they sold and continue to sell to Americans and the rest of the world is a chemically engineered plant that they have called “the best drug delivery system” ever created.

A federal judge, Judge Gladys Kessler, has also read the documents, heard the testimony and saw fit to condemn Big Tobacco for sins against the American public:

• These cases are about an industry that profits from selling a highly addictive product that causes a staggering number of deaths each year and Big Tobacco has known about the dangers for more than 50 years.
• “Defendants have marketed and sold their lethal products with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted.”
• “Over the course of more than 50 years, Defendants lied, misrepresented and deceived the American public, including smokers and the young people they avidly sought as ‘replacement’ smokers about the devastating health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke.”
• “The evidence in this case clearly establishes that Defendants have not ceased engaging in unlawful activity…. For example, most Defendants continue to fraudulently deny the adverse health effects of secondhand smoke which they recognized internally; all Defendants continue to market “low tar” cigarettes to consumers seeking to reduce their health risks or quit; all Defendants continue to fraudulently deny that they manipulate the nicotine delivery of their cigarettes in order to create and sustain addiction; some Defendants continue to deny that they market to youth in publications with significant youth readership and with imagery that targets youth; and some Defendants continue to  suppress and conceal information which might undermine their public or litigation position…. Their continuing conduct misleads consumers in order to maximize Defendants’ revenues by recruiting new smokers (the majority of whom are under the age of 18), preventing current smokers from quitting, and thereby sustaining the industry.”
• “Despite Their Internal Knowledge, Defendants Continued, From 1964 Onward, to Falsely Deny and Distort the Serious Health Effects of Smoking”
• “As of 2005, Defendants Still Do Not Admit the Serious Health Effects of Smoking Which They Recognized Internally Decades Ago”

Even a powerful industry like the tobacco companies does not hide, deceive or scheme on their own, though. Judge Kessler also has interesting things to say about lawyers that have counseled and defended the tobacco companies for all these decades:

• “At every stage, (Big Tobacco’s) lawyers played an absolutely central role in the creation and perpetuation of the Enterprise and the implementation of its fraudulent schemes. They devised and coordinated both national and international strategy; they directed scientists as to what research they should and should not undertake; they vetted scientific research papers and reports as well as public relations materials to ensure that the interests of the Enterprise would be protected; they identified “friendly” scientific witnesses, subsidized them with grants from the Center for Tobacco Research and the Center for Indoor Air Research, paid them enormous fees, and often hid the relationship between those witnesses and the industry; and they devised and carried out document destruction policies and took shelter behind baseless assertions of the attorney client privilege.”
• Through their recruiting and training of consultants around the world, Defendants created a cadre of seemingly independent consultants to support the industry’s position on secondhand smoke and to create the impression that a legitimate controversy existed among independent scientists. The global effort to create and manage this program required intense coordination among the companies and their counsel [outside lawyers].

When an objective eye is turned upon all the evidence relating to the conduct of the tobacco industry the conclusions are inescapable. So, how can jurors reach differing verdicts? The lawyers representing Big Tobacco are some of the best in the nation, possibly the world. They have had decades to refine arguments that may convince even the most experienced jurist  to exclude certain relevant evidence.

For example, in a tobacco case brought since the issuance of the Surgeon General’s report on smoking in the 1960’s and after warning labels were put on cigarettes, it might be argued that any evidence of conspiracy or fraud on the part of the tobacco companies that occurred prior to the 1960’s should be kept from the jury. Tobacco lawyers regularly challenge the experts employed by plaintiffs by arguing that those experts are simply reinterpreting prior studies from the past and have done no “independent” testing of their own. The fact is the tobacco industry spent millions of dollars “creating” research results and conducting studies that would bring forth the evidence they wanted revealed; so, actually conducting a study has questionable value.

Once all evidence of Big Tobacco’s conspiracies, fraudulent tactics and deceptive practices hits the “light of day” it Tobacco’s arguments go up in smoke.

Just how much are consumers of eye care products supposed to take before they have had enough? On the heels of two major disasters in the eye care industry yet another has emerged. Cooper Vision a major manufacturer of eye care products including soft contact lenses has announced the recall of five million contact lenses due to sight threatening defects.

Initially Cooper announced in August it was recalling six hundred thousand Avaira Toric lenses after wearers reported severe pain, red eyes and hazy vision. More serious injuries including torn corneas were reported as well. Now the company has recently expanded that recall to five million lenses.

As is usual, the company blamed the problem on something simple and innocuous. This time it was a silicone oil residue on the lenses that they blame for the issues customers have experienced. Also par for the course, the original “recall” included only notice to eye care professionals and not consumers. Since many contact lens wearers buy several months’ worth of lenses at a time, this type of “soft” recall leaves thousands of defective devices in consumers’ medicine cabinets. Only after pressure from the FDA did Cooper take the extra step to alert consumers directly.

The expanded recall includes not only the Avaira Toric lenses but the Avaira Sphere as well. These lenses are sold at Wal-Mart, Costco and LensCrafters.

This recall comes on the heels of two major recalls of contact lens solutions manufactured by Bausch and Lomb and Advanced Medical Optics. In 2006 and 2007 these companies were forced to recall their newest flagship lens solutions when it was determined that they were causing sight threatening infections. Users of these solutions suffered unnecessary Fusarium and Acanthamoeba infections many of which led to the need for corneal transplant surgery and permanent loss of vision. Major litigation followed. To the best of my knowledge, neither Bausch and Lomb nor AMO has tried a single case. All have been resolved through settlement.

To find out if your Cooper Vision lenses are part of the recall, click on this link and see if the lot number on your lenses matches any listed on Cooper Vision’s recall list. http://www.coopervision.com/recall

Over the past four years, El Sol, Jupiter’s Neighborhood Resource Center has been a part of the community through Artfest. The money raised from this event benefits the Hispanic Community of The Sun and with those proceeds, the Sun can continue their community work they have been successfully doing for five years.

The Artfest is a free public event that brings together people from all over the county through its music, food, and crafts. You can find everything from ponchos, to purses, to paintings and handmade jewelry. The jewels are brought from different parts of Central and South America.

The event also includes a variety of original paintings, made ​​by employees of The Sun and by artists in the community.

This year I had the opportunity to participate and volunteer at the event. I enjoy the cultures of different countries, artists, and folk. The Artfest reminded me that we must never forget where we came from and continue appreciating and valuing our cultural wealth. And although different, all are equal.

It has now been more than a year since the DePuy ASR implant was recalled due to an alarmingly high rate of failure of the device, which was first documented in Australia and Europe years ago, at a time when the hip implants enjoyed continued strong sales in the United States.

For tens of thousands of patients, the past 15 months or so have been ones filled with extreme anxiety, pain, and frustration because of the following:

• Receiving countless empty promises, significant delays, and the proverbial “run around” from the Broadspire “claims program,” which has been far more kind to surgeons and healthcare providers with unpaid bills than to injured patients.
• Experiencing significant fear and apprehension over blood tests showing elevated levels of cobalt and chromium in their bloodstream, without any clear answers as to what harm this might cause them over time and what can be done about it.
• Enduring yet another painful hip implant revision surgery.  In some cases, within mere months of their original surgery (at which time, they were promised by DePuy that they would not have to undergo this ordeal for 15 years or more due to the alleged proven performance and superiority of the DePuy ASR and other metal-on-metal hip implant products over traditional ceramic and plastic liners).

Thousands of patients have suffered significant complications and have had less than favorable outcomes due to the trauma of extra procedures, complications stemming from metallosis and inflammatory reactions to the metal-on-metal surfaces, pseudotumor formation, infections, and other serious side effects.

Thankfully, scientists are working to answer questions that DePuy should have answered long before their first DePuy metal-on-metal device was implanted in patients.  Several studies have been recently published that help to expand the understanding of the systemic reaction that is triggered by metal-on-metal implants in patients as well as why these devices are failing at alarmingly high rates.  The recent most findings by scientists are:

• Cobalt and Chromium Ions Reduce Human Osteoblast-Like Cell Activity In Vitro, Reduce the OPG to RANKL Ratio, and Induce Oxidative Stress, published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research, on October 24, 2011 – This study focused on how elevated levels of cobalt and chromium in the blood reduce the number of osteoblast-like cells and essentially impair the body’s ability to normally regenerate and maintain healthy bone.  Ultimately, the authors concluded that patients with elevated levels of chromium and cobalt in the blood are at risk for impaired bone health and that consideration should be given to removal of their metal-on-metal hip implants, even when x-rays and other evidence indicate that the DePuy ASR or other metal-on-metal implants are properly positioned without solid evidence of loosening.

• Corrosion Fatigue of Biomedical Metallic Alloys:  Mechanisms and Mitigation, published in the Acta Biomaterialia, in 2011 – This highly complex medical article from Brazil includes a review of the professional literature that has been published around the world on the scientific explanation for the widespread premature mechanical failure of metal-on-metal hip devices due to corrosion.  The study focuses on a number of different metals and alloys including titanium, surgical-grade stainless steel, cobalt, chromium, and magnesium.  The study also focuses on wear patterns, development of fatigue cracks, pitting corrosion, and formation of crevices at the taper junction, which allow infiltration and pooling of bodily fluids that induce corrosion and cause the release of metallic ions.  The processes of corrosion and metal fatigue combine to lead to premature failure of the devices, which necessitated the recall of the DePuy ASR implants, but, so far, has not resulted in the recall of a number of other metal-on-metal devices manufactured by DePuy (including some models in the popular Pinnacle family) as well as similar MOM products manufactured by Zimmer, Stryker, Biomet, Smith & Nephew, and other medical device companies.

• Pseudotumor from a Metal-on-Metal Hip, published in The Journal of Rheumatology, in 2011 – This publication from physicians in Tokyo includes a graphic, intra-operative photograph of a revision surgery where the synovial tissue has been stained due to the metallosis process.  This same staining as well as the presence of abnormal appearing inflammatory fluid and even metal shavings have been noted in other patients, including some of my clients, who have undergone revision surgeries following the DePuy ASR recall.  In the Japanese patient featured in this medical report, the surgeons noted the presence of pseudotumors in the patient’s pelvis, thigh, and gluteal region, which were triggered by a breakdown in the chemical properties of the metallic surfaces of the patient’s hip implant. This patient’s pseudotumors and obvious inflammatory reaction occurred about three years after being implanted with an Encore Medical metal-on-metal hip implant, a product that is now sold by DJO Surgical of Austin, Texas.

While the steady stream of new scientific reports are helpful to patients pursuing lawsuits against DePuy and other manufacturers, it is little comfort to those duped into implanting themselves with a toxic, defective product and are now faced with scary prospects with regard to their medical and surgical future.  While the Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) has noted that it has been looking into safety issues for the past 15 months, the FDA’s slow pace in issuing stronger safety alerts and/or recalling defective metal-on-metal implants has resulted in tens of thousands of patients not being properly monitored for toxicity due to a lack of awareness by surgeons, patients, and the public.  I hope that the flood of new information will be disturbing enough for the FDA to act more definitively.

We were allowed to go to a local elementary school, Hope Centennial Elementary here in West Palm Beach, and read a book to the children.

I think the kids enjoyed themselves. I, and my colleagues, had a wonderful time!

Our law firm sees injured people daily and we try to do what we can to help them. It is our business, but we hear tough and heartbreaking stories daily and it is always difficult to experience the suffering that people must go through when they have been injured.

It is not often we can just be with children who are bright, adorable and full of the joy that goes with, well, just being kids. It is not often we are provided the opportunity to sit with a group of these children and enjoy the experience of reading.

The American Academy for Pediatrics strongly recommends reading to children from birth in order to stimulate development of the brain, language and to develop a stronger emotional relationship with your child.

I can tell you that if you can instill a love for reading in a child, you have just provided him or her with a skill that will allow them to learn anything and do anything they want to do.

It was simply a joy for me to watch each of their beautiful faces light up as we read “Book, Book, Book” together and followed all sorts of farm animals to the local library (you will have to read the book to understand the context).

But, Mariano Garcia, Laurie Briggs and Cathy Coia, and I had the time of our lives.

In fact, because the school is a “dual language” institution, Mariano Garcia read in both English and Spanish. The dual language program allows children to learn their studies in both English and Spanish.

I really hope that Hope Centennial invites us back for another chance for us to have fun reading to these wonderful children.

You can not drink alcohol and drive a motor vehicle safely. Period.

We are fast approaching “tis the season” with Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years nearly upon us and it is a good time to remind ourselves of important aspects of being safe while making jolly.

Think about it. You are at a party. You have a drink and then a couple more. Your inhibitions drop…your judgment is impaired. It is exactly what we know the alcohol does and driving at that point should not be expected to go well at all.

But, people still get behind the wheel too often when they should be calling a taxi or a friend. Sadly, EVERY injury or death caused by drunk driving is completely preventable.

The legal limit for determining whether you are impaired in Florida is a .08 blood/alcohol level (BAC) and if you are under 21 years old, it is a .02 blood alcohol level. Blood alcohol level is a method of expressing the amount of alcohol in a person’s blood system at any given time. A BAC of .08 means that .08% of a person’s total blood volume contains alcohol.

The amount of alcohol called for in most state’s to categorize someone as intoxicated does not seem like a great deal on the surface. Let’s look at the progression of blood/alcohol level and the response to that alcohol in most people:

.03 – .059             mild euphoria, decreased inhibition and impaired concentration

.06 – .09               impaired reasoning, depth perception, impaired peripheral vision and difficulty in recovering from light glare

.10 – .19               impaired reflexes, slower reaction times, and impaired gross motor control

.20 – .29               severe motor impairment, memory blackout and loss of consciousness

How much is too much? Putting aside for the moment that when behind the wheel, any is too much, It is difficult to predict because so many variables affect blood alcohol level:

• The type of alcohol being drank;
• Food intake;
• Level of fitness;
• The weight of the person;
• The amount of body fat the person has;
• The sex of the person; and
• The number of drinks consumed in a given time period.

Know this: the number of drinks ingested is a poor measure of intoxication. In addition, if you have been drinking, you are a poor judge of the level of your intoxication or your ability to react in a 4000 pound piece of metal moving at any speed.

If we look at (5) large counties in the State of Florida, in 2006, 14,132 people were convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, drugs or both. In the same year, 1,111 people were killed in alcohol related crashes on Florida roadways. Realistically, that 1,111 number could have been horrifically higher and, had Florida law enforcement not been successful in getting over 14,000 impaired drivers off the roadway, the death toll might have reached into the multiple thousands dead as a result of the combination of alcohol and motor vehicles.

But even with dedicated law enforcement officers trying to keep roads safe, there were 10,389 fatalities resulting from alcohol impaired driving in the United States in 2009. In Florida, in 2009, there were 904 fatalities, representing nearly 10% of the entire country total for that year.

So, what else can be done besides each of us demonstrating personal responsibility? Here are some recommendations from noted experts:

• DWI courts, sometimes called DUI courts, sobriety courts, wellness courts or accountability courts have proven effective in reducing the crime of drunken driving.
• Automatic license revocation.
• Impounding or confiscating license plates.
• Mandating the installation of interlock devices that prevent intoxicated persons from starting a vehicle.
• Volunteer to be a designated driver.
• Always use a safety seat belt.
• Use four-lane highways whenever possible.
• Avoid rural roads.
• Avoid travel after midnight (especially on Fridays and Saturdays).
• Never drive when fatigued. The dangers posed when fatigued are similar to those when intoxicated. A drunk or fatigued driver has slowed reactions and impaired judgment. And a driver who nods off at the wheel has no reactions and no judgment! Drivers who drift off cause about 72,500 injuries and deaths each and every year.
• Steer clear of aggressive drivers. Aggressive drivers may be responsible for more deaths than drunk drivers.

The best prevention from a drunken driving incident? Don’t drink and drive; don’t let friends drink and drive; don’t ride in a vehicle with someone who has been drinking and report drivers you observe on the roadways if you suspect they may be impaired.

New data suggests that SUV’s (short for “sport utility vehicle”) have become safer for other drivers to have them on the road.

The study was conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research arm of the insurance industry.  The study found that in 2000-2001, there were 44 deaths per million registered vehicles for occupants of cars or minivans weighing 3,000 to 3,499 pounds that were hit by SUVs of similar weight.  This number has now decreased by nearly 64% to 16 deaths per million registered vehicles.

[dailymotion]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xldc3d_effort-to-make-suvs-less-deadly-paying-off_auto[/dailymotion]

SUVs became popular in the US about 20 years ago.   With their popularity, we began to see the dangers that some of these vehicles posed to other drivers and passengers, especially in rollover accidents and when colliding with smaller vehicles. Their popularity created a push by regulators, safety advocates, and consumers to improve their safety to prevent rollovers and to make them safer when they collided with other vehicles.

Why the push to improve safety?

At the time, many SUVs and pickups rode much higher off the ground than smaller cars.  Consequently, in a collision, the SUVs’ and trucks’ stiff frames collided with lower, weaker, parts of car frames.  This created a huge disparity in the ability of car occupants to survive the crash.

Joseph M. Nolan, who was a co-author of the study, found the death rates for occupants of cars are now virtually the same whether the vehicle is hit by another car, or an SUV of similar weight. He said, “it used to be, pound for pound, trucks and SUVs were more deadly than cars.”  But that appears no longer the case.

Trucks in comparison

These vehicles still could use improvement in collisions; however, the risk was narrowed significantly in 2008 -2009 compared with 2000-2001, the study found.  Nonetheless, car occupants who collide with a pick-up truck, rather than a car, are still more likely to die in a collision.

The Good News

The US Department of Transportation has said that overall, highway fatalities have declined to the lowest rate since 1949.

Make sure your vehicle is operating safely by changing your tires regularly, checking important safety recalls on the vehicle you own, and always remember to wear your seatbelt!