Randy Barnhart

Dumping Defective Hip Implants Overseas

The Trial Lawyer, A Magazine for Trial Lawyers & a Voice for Justice, re-reported an important article in the N.Y. Times about how non-FDA-approved hip implants were shipped off-shore instead. Here's an excerpt demonstrating the typical shift-the-blame stance taken by manufacturing conglomerates regarding the risks of their defective products:

Before the recall, DePuy long defended the articular surface replacement device, saying that any failures associated with it reflected failures by surgeons to properly implant the hip cup. The surgeons who performed the study of the resurfacing version of the device that was rejected by the F.D.A. were handpicked by DePuy and included the model’s designers.

Dr. Antoni Nargol, an orthopedic surgeon in England who worked on the study that DePuy submitted to the F.D.A. and later became a critic of the device, said in a telephone interview that the company had never informed him that its application for approval in the United States had been rejected.

Thousands of people now face pain and injury due to defective hip implants. Contact the firm if you have questions about the safety of your hip implant and your legal rights.

Auto Electronic Control Systems and Your Safety

As a long-time products liability lawyer fighting the auto manufacturers for negligently if not also knowingly allowing their defective products to cause their loyal customers serious personal injury, I was interested in the recent statement by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding a report on electronic control systems released by the National Academy of Sciences:

NHTSA commissioned the panel of National Academy of Sciences appointees to comprehensively review electronic control systems. While the auto manufacturers quack "safe, safe, safe," NHTSA stated that it needs to better understand the causes of unintended acceleration in passenger vehicles. So there is more than one cause? There is more than the supposed cause advertised by the manufacturers - lead foot on the gas pedal?

On its website, NHTSA states: The agency "has already taken steps to strengthen its expertise in electronic control systems while expanding research in this area — and the agency has considerable experience dealing with vehicle electronics issues in its research, rulemaking, and enforcement programs. But, NHTSA will continue to evaluate and improve every aspect of its work to keep the driving public safe, including research to assess potential safety concerns and help ensure the reliability of electronic control systems in vehicles. The agency will also further refine its strategic plan to address any potential technical and policy issues."

Potential safety concerns? There is nothing potential about the facts of electronic systems going haywire. Potential technical and policy issues?

Update - February 3, 2012: see this article, Electronics in Autos Pose New Safety Issues, Scientists Say, in the Insurance Journal.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Device?

Artificial hip replacement devices, but especially Metal-on-Metal (MoM) hip implants, come with unique risks associated with the daily wear on the ball and socket. The metal ball and the metal socket or cup are in constant contact and wear while walking and running. As a result, microscopic metal bits or particles shed away from the device and enter into the tissue around the implant. Further, these metal particles can transmute to metallic ions which can then enter the bloodstream. Even if the surgeon takes every precaution, shedding metal particles cannot be completely avoided. See this article on wikipedia.

To be sure, not all people who receive MoM hip implants have the same reaction to the metal particles or ions. It is impossible to predict who will experience a negative reaction to the metal debris, and if so, what precisely that negative reaction will be. Also unknowable is when the negative reaction might happen or its severity. Still, it is true that over time, the metal debris shed by MoM implants can cause serious damage to bone and tissue in the hip area, called "adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR)" or "adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD)." Further, the metallic ions can effect on heart, nervous system, and thyroid gland. In many cases, the resulting pain compels a "revision surgery" which replaces the implanted device with a new one.

The firm is actively investigating cases of failed hip implants. Several involve the Wright Profemur Z Hip. Protect your rights: a Metal-on-Metal (MoM) hip implant may cause serious injury and pain, requiring replacement. More here.

Recall: Power X Bike Chain Defect - Product Liability

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Hazard: The bicycle chain can break, causing a rider to lose control and fall.

Incidents/Injuries: The firm is aware of 11 reports of incidents, including 9 reports of injuries, including lacerations and contusions.

Description: This recall involves “NEXT”-branded men’s 26-inch hybrid bicycles. The bicycles are red or orange. “Power X” and “Suspension” are printed on the frame. Model numbers LBH2611M and LBH2611M2 are included in this recall. The model number is located on the frame between the pedals.

Sold at Walmart from February 2011 through July 2011 for about $100.

Stop using the recalled bicycle and contact the company for a free repair.

Consumer Contact: Bridgeway International at (877) 934-3228 - or visit the firm’s website at www.powerxbike.com.

 

 

NEXT BRANDED BICYCLES SOLD AT WAL-MART

 

The 26-inch bicycles are red or orange and “Power X” and “Suspension” are printed on the frame. 

 

Model Numbers:  LBH2611M and LBH2611M2

 

Bicycles were sold from February 2011 through approximately July 2011 with manufacturing Date Codes between 20110101 to 20110420 (January 1, 2011 and April 20, 2011)

 

 

 

 

Stop using the NEXT Power X bicycle immediately.  Inspect the manufacturing label on the bottom of the bicycle frame. If you have a bicycle that was manufactured between January 1, 2011 and April 20, 2011, please contact Bridgeway International for a free repair.

Colorado Products Liability - The Innocent Seller Defense, Part 1

Defendants who are "sellers" of defective products, that is, who sell products with design defects, manufacturing defects, or which fail to provide adequate warnings or instructions on use to minimize the risk of injury or property damage, will typically invoke the Colorado statute, 13-21-401 et seq.

The statute provides that an action cannot be maintained against a "seller" of an allegedly defective product unless:

(1) the seller also manufactured the product,
(2) the manufacturer of the product is not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction, or
(3) the seller had actual knowledge of the defect at the time of sale.

Apart from those three exceptions, however, an action against a defendant may not be on account of the defendant's status as a  "seller." Yet, defendants who are also "sellers" will argue that they can only be sued as a "seller" if in fact they sold the defective product which allegedly caused personal injury or damage. With that strategy, defendants will then loudly proclaim themselves as "innocent sellers" in order to invoke the immunity to liability provided by the statute.

Not so fast. Nothing in the statute precludes a suit against a defendant, otherwise also the "seller" of the defective product in question, who is allegedly negligent in some other capacity, for example, on account of their status as a service provider with regard  to the defective product in question. 

Let's say the innocent seller is also an allegedly culpable "recaller," that is, the seller is a link in the chain of a product recall initiated by the manufacturer or ordered by a regulatory entity (for example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), because of a defect in the product. What then?

Come back soon for the answer.

STIHL Recalls Yard Power Products Due to Burn and Fire Hazards

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Name of Product: Gas powered STIHL trimmers, brushcutters, KombiMotors, hedge trimmers, edgers, clearing saws, pole pruners, and backpack blowers that utilize a toolless fuel cap

Units: About 2.3 million

Manufacturer: STIHL Inc., of Virginia Beach, Va.

Hazard: The level of ethanol and other fuel additives can distort the toolless fuel cap, allowing fuel to spill, posing a fire and burn hazard.

Incidents/Injuries: STIHL has received 81 reports of difficulty installing and/or removing the fuel caps and fuel spillage. No injuries have been reported.

via www.cpsc.gov

Defective Strollers Recalled - Risk of Amputation

From the CPSC website:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Name of Product: Maclaren Strollers
Units: About one million
Distributor: Maclaren USA, Inc., of South Norwalk, Conn.
Hazard: The stroller's hinge mechanism poses a fingertip amputation and laceration hazard to the child when the consumer is unfolding/opening the stroller.
Incidents/Injuries: The firm has received 15 reports of children placing their finger in the stroller's hinge mechanism, resulting in 12 reports of fingertip amputations in the United States.
Description: This recall involves all Maclaren single and double umbrella strollers. The word "Maclaren" is printed on the stroller.
Sold at: Babies "R" Us, Target and other juvenile product and mass merchandise retailers nationwide from 1999 through November 2009 for between $100 and $360.
Manufactured in: China
Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled strollers and contact Maclaren USA to receive a free repair kit.
Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Maclaren USA toll-free at (877) 688-2326 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the Maclaren firm's web site.

Nissan - Corrosion Defects Leading to Crashes

NHTSA has acknowledged this defect recall for Nissan vehicles:

Summary:

Nissan is recalling certain model year 1996-2004 Pathfinder and model year 1997-2003 Infinity 4x4 vehicles originally sold, or currently registered in the District of Columbia, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

In areas of the country in which heavy concentrations of road salt are used, a mixture of snow/water and salt may enter an assembly location hole in the upper strut housing, causing water to collect at the mating surface of the strut housing panel and the inner hood ledge assembly. Over time, this snow/water and salt intrusion may result in corrosion of the strut tower housing in some subject vehicles.

Consequence:

The strut housing may crack and pull away from the inner hood ledge assembly. This may lead to grinding noises, increased steering effort, and possibly the steering column to break, resulting in the loss of steering control, which could result in a crash.

 See complete recall notice here.

Ford Defect - Lack of Front Anti-Lock Brakes!

Ford gets reversed in the 10th Circuit in a case in which the plaintiff asserted negligence and product liability theories, alleging the Ford truck was unreasonably dangerous because it lacked front-wheel anti-lock brakes!

Reversing summary judgment, the court found:

In his deposition testimony, [expert] Medcalf initially conceded that he did not know when Moore began his counter-steer, and therefore could not tell whether anti-lock brakes would have prevented the accident.

Later in that same deposition, however, he categorically stated that four-wheel anti-lock brakes would have prevented the accident.

Q. My question to you is: Had this vehicle had full wheel anti[-]lockbrakes, would the vehicle have been able to come out of that yaw sufficiently to avoid this collision with [M.J.H.]?. . . .[A]. Yes.Q. Is that based on a reasonable degree of engineering certainty? A. Yes.A few questions later, Medcalf repeated this categorical assertion.

Q. Now, looking at your opinion number five on page two of Exhibit 35, you write: It is my opinion that to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty had the vehicle been equipped with a fourwheel anti-lock brake system, it is more likely than not that Mr. Moore would have regained steering capability as he turned the wheels back to the right, allowing him to avoid a collision with[M.J.H.]. Is that still your opinion today? A. Yes.

These assertions are crucial. The entire basis of the district court’s grant of summary judgment was that, once it denied BancFirst’s attempts to alter Medcalf’s testimony, “the court [was] left with a failure of proof on [BancFirst’s] part,” because BancFirst “has no competent evidence that the accident would not have occurred had Moore’s truck been equipped with four-wheel ABS.”

However, in the unaltered deposition, Medcalf asserts that four-wheel anti-lock brakes would have prevented the accident. Even though he appears to contradict himself earlier in the deposition, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to BancFirst creates a genuine dispute of material fact. Summary judgment was improper.

The appellate court gets it right. Unpublished opinion here.

Defective Product Recalls - Watch and Learn

Ford Recalls 363,000 F-150 Trucks Over Door Handles

Ford Motor Co. is recalling nearly 363,000 F-150 pickup trucks in North America because of a potential problem with the interior door handles not working properly, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported Thursday.

via www.claimsjournal.com

Junk Science Versus Junk Doubt - Part 1

Lawyering is not just reading cases, briefs, contracts and other documents. My practice invites, if not compels, me to remain abreast of wider social, political and regulatory policies which impact not only the public, but the specific rights and rules implicated in a lawsuit for personal injury or death arising from defective products, whether it be defective autos and tires or dangerously defective drugs and workplaces.

Hence, the recent book, Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, by David Michaels, {amazon, barnes&noble} is important and should be widely read and discussed. Consider the Table of Contents from the book, which shows the range and depth of the social and political problems caused by the self-interested manufacture of wrongful doubt:

Introduction: "Sound Science" or "Sounds Like Science"?
The Manufacture of Doubt
Workplace Cancer before OSHA: Waiting for the Body Count
America Demands Protection
Why Our Children Are Smarter Than We Are
The Enronization of Science
Tricks of the Trade: How Mercenary Scientists Mislead You
Defending Secondhand Smoke
Still Waiting for the Body Count
Chrome-Plated Mischief
Popcorn Lung: OSHA Gives Up
Defending the Taxicab Standard
The Country Has a Drug Problem
Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You've Never Heard Of
The Institutionalization of Uncertainty
The Bush Administration's Political Science
Making Peace with the Past
Four Ways to Make the Courts Count
Sarbanes-Oxley for Science: A Dozen Ways to Improve Our Regulatory System

In the introduction, the author relates a maddening instance of manufacturers' callous disregard of public, that is, human, safety. The "aspirin manufacturers delayed the FDA's regulation [requiring a warning on the link between aspirin intake by children and Reye's syndrome] by arguing that the science establishing the aspirin link was incomplete, uncertain, and unclear." Before the regulation was enforced, many children died; after the regulation was enforced, "less than a handful" of cases are reported in any given year.

In this series of posts, I will be considering the author's facts and arguments, putting them in the context of a trial lawyer's practice focused on product defect and the liability for injury by those defective products. The legal system, and your rights to recover for injury caused by negligent and reckless conduct, is in may ways shaped by wider concerns such as the use--rather, the misuse or abuse--of science by irresponsible and profit-hungry manufacturers.

For many years now, the big corporate interests have made a concerted effort to paint the proofs of defective products by trial lawyers as junk science, but the real story is the junk doubt that these corporate interests have manufactured and instilled on the part of policy-makers, legislators and judges. Time to expose the doubt and uncertainty for what it really is - JUNK.

Toyota Sudden Acceleration Trials Not So Sudden

This came over the wires:

The first of scores of lawsuits filed against Toyota Motor Corp. in U.S. federal courts over complaints of unintended acceleration are unlikely to go to trial for at least two years, the judge overseeing the cases said on Friday.

U.S. District Judge James Selna told lawyers at a status conference that he expected so-called bellwether cases -- those he will choose to serve as guides for how the rest of the litigation might proceed -- to be ready for trial during the first quarter of 2013.

Source here. The issues are not limited to jammed floor mats or sticky gas pedals, but implicate the electronic throttle systems in Toyota vehicles. If there is a ghost in the machine, trial lawyers need to become ghost-busters for the jury. 

Manufacturers Whine About Consumer Complaint Internet Tools

The federal government is ramping up its internet tools for consumers who have issues and problems with products, especially defective products, and, not surprisingly, manufacturers and their trade groups are "concerned about smear campaigns and lawsuits." See report here. 

In effect, and ironically,  manufacturers are whining about "defects" in the consumer complaint sites being built and maintained by the government:

[I]ndustry associations have expressed concern that baseless or inaccurate complaints could taint reputations. They have also raised the specter of class-action attorneys using the safety commission database to get new lawsuit ideas.

Id.  I say ironically, and laughably too, because big corporations and manufacturers are quick to point and complain about possible shortcomings or concerns (defects!) in consumer empowerment tools - the new internet tools being built by the government (both state and federal), but then take umbrage when ordinary folks (consumers who pay for their products), and their attorneys, point to the defects in their own products by way of lawsuits for damages personal injury and wrongful death.

 From the website of the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, we learn the following:

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) became law on August 14, 2008. Through CPSIA, Congress gave the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) powerful new tools to protect consumers and their families. Our Commissioners, staff, and stakeholders are engaged in the implementation of CPSIA through a process we call the Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS). CPSRMS will help us bring together consumer advocates, manufacturers, retailers, and the general public to create dialogue and track our progress.

CPSIA requires CPSC to create a public portal and a publicly accessible, searchable database of consumer product incident reports. Through the public portal, consumers will be able to report potential product safety hazards to CPSC in ways that improve the quality, value, and accuracy of the data collected. Manufacturers will be able to investigate and respond to product hazard reports more quickly, and to share information with both CPSC investigators and with the public through the public database. By working together, we will provide the American public with faster and more effective responses to product safety hazards. And consumers and researchers will be able to use the public portal and database to find more information about hazards in order to keep their families safe.

We are engaging the public in our efforts to implement CPSIA by holding hearings and public workshops and attending consumer and industry conferences. At our November 10, 2009 hearing, the CPSC received feedback from manufacturers, retailers, consumer advocates, and data experts. In January, 2010, we held staff workshops to engage interested parties in more detailed questions about how our searchable consumer database will function. Key participants included manufacturers, retailers, applications providers, community groups, and other groups that have a stake in the future of consumer safety.

I urge all good people to learn more about these new initiatives and to actively participate in making products we all use much safer. 

Section 3 - Restatement 3rd Torts: Product Liability - Part A

Defendants in product liability cases, like Ford motor Company, are fond of relying on the Texas supreme court’s opinion in Nissan Motor Co. v Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. 2004), for excluding evidence of other similar incidents (OSI). Far more relevant is the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 3 (1998)(“Section 3”):

It may be inferred that the harm sustained by the plaintiff was caused by a product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution, without proof of a specific defect, when the incident that harmed the plaintiff:

 (a) was of a kind that ordinarily occurs as a result of product defect; and

 (b) was not, in the particular case, solely the result of causes other than product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution.

While not formally adopted in Colorado, it should be, and the sooner the better.  See AE, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 168 P.3d 507, 512 n1 (Colo. 2007)(“the restatements generally provide concise summaries of the law in a certain subject matter and can be persuasive authority”).

The comments to, and illustrations of, Section 3 are important. Section 3

 traces its historical antecedents to the law of negligence, which has long recognized that an inference of negligence may be drawn in cases where the defendant's negligence is the best explanation for the cause of an accident, even if the plaintiff cannot explain the exact nature of the defendant’s conduct. See Restatement, Second, Torts § 328D. As products liability law developed, cases arose in which an inference of product defect could be drawn from the incident in which a product caused plaintiff's harm, without proof of the specific nature of the defect.”

Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 3 (1998), comment a (emphasis added). Colorado has long-since adopted Restatement, Second, Torts § 328D. See Branco E. Co. v. Leffler, 482 P.2d 364, 367 (1971), after which Section 3 was modeled.

 

Twittering a Major Verdict Against Ford for Explorer Rollover

There were no reporters present in Laurel, Miss. when a jury handed down a $131 million verdict against Ford after an Explorer rolled over, killing a young man who was on track to play baseball for the New York Mets. Hours after the verdict, there was no coverage of a case that involved a high profile victim, a major corporation, and the possibility that more than four million Ford Explorers are dangerously unstable.

Adam Penenberg heard about the verdict immediately from the defense lawyer. Hours later, he was amazed to see there had been no major media coverage at all. So he turned to Twitter.

Firing off more than 50 tweets in two hours, Penenberg related the entire story of the fatal accident, the case and the verdict.

via www.readwriteweb.com

After the verdict came in, Ford settled the case for which it must pay for the rollover-prone and thus defective Ford Explorer. Penenberg's article can be found here. Says Penenberg:

There is ample proof that more than 4 million Ford Explorers were dangerously unstable and prone to rolling over at far higher rates than other vehicles, including other popular SUVs. In fact, according to government accident statistics, one in every 2,700 Ford Explorers built between 1990 and 2001 (when Ford finally reengineered the vehicle) rolled over and killed at least one person in the car.

The figures for the Ford Bronco II, the precursor of the Ford Explorer, are even more frightening: one in 500 Bronco IIs ever produced was involved in a fatal rollover. But you won't find many publications willing to go there. Perhaps they are fearful of losing Ford advertising dollars.

To this day Ford denies its Bronco II and Explorer is dangerously defective. Ford is wrong and should be held accountable, over and over again if need be until it becomes a responsible manufacturer. Click here for more.

CTLA 2010 Presentation - Attack, Deny, Delay: Industry’s Playbook for Avoiding Consumer Justice

Lawsuit Compensation for Bodily Injury - Healing, Not Just About Money

Too often, the media and news (actually, entertainment) pundits disparage the legal system and trial lawyers for "lawsuit abuse." The reports are rarely neutral or objective; more typically, such are well-orchestrated campaigns by interest groups or ideologues.

In one of my cases, currently on appeal by the defendant in the Tenth Circuit, my client was injured on account of a defective seat belt. She is now in a wheel-chair. For her catastrophic injuries, the jury awarded her $4.5 million. Will the money make her walk again? Not in and of itself, of course, but it may help, even if indirectly, we must hope.

Why? Check this recent news item as blogged by Scientific American:

Researchers have been searching for decades for a way to mend damage to the spinal cord, an injury that can lead to life-long paralysis. Even the smallest of breaks in these crucial central nerve fibers can result in the loss of leg, arm and other bodily functions. ...

A new study, ... demonstrates that voluntary movement can be reestablished in mice with spinal cord damage after removing a common enzyme that regulates the neuronal cell growth. ...

The removed enzyme PTEN, a phosphatase and tensin homolog, helps to dictate activity in the mTOR pathway, which plays a role in cell growth. During maturation, PTEN is activated, halting cell regeneration, but after removing it from a group of experimental mice with spinal cord injury, the neurons grew as they did in the development phase.

The researchers propose that "neuronal growth competence is dependent on the capability of new protein synthesis, which provides building blocks for axonal regrowth." Restarting the mTOR pathway, what the authors term a "'rejuvenation' strategy," could "be widely applicable for promoting successful regeneration following many types of injuries or traumas in the adult [central nervous system]."

Reestablishing this communication across those broken synapses could be life-changing for the millions of people who live with spinal cord injury across the world....

Perhaps this research will benefit my client.  There is always hope. Healing, perhaps walking again...that's what legitimate personal injury lawsuits against manufacturers of defective products are all about.

Micro-blogging 15-passenger van defects

The micro-blog platform, posterous.com or tumblr.com, for example,might work best for blogging a specific product defect which risks catastrophic injury or death. 

I started building such a micro-blog, 15-passenger van accident attorney, over the past few weeks to showcase the serious risks of driving and riding in defective 15-passenger vans. Here's a few posts:

Minister of Education, British Columbia: School Districts and 15-passenger vans

University of Montana Phases Out (?) Defective 15-Passenger Vans

Denver Post article: 15-passenger vans have history of deadly rollovers

I hope my micro-blog will be instructive both to other attorneys and to anyone interested in this serious social and legal problem.

NHTSA - 47,000 Auto Complaints/Year Divided by 21 Staff = Disaster

I subscribe to Google alerts about Sean Kane, who was recently quoted in a news report by 10news.com reporting San Diego:

"They clearly have a job that's nearly impossible," said auto safety expert Sean Kane.

He's talking about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the federal agency in charge of tracking complaints. ...

10News discovered in the past five years, NHTSA received more than 235,000 complaints detailing problems about vehicles on the market and on the road.

But there are only 21 people working on in the agency's Office of Defects to investigate the complaints.

Do the math: 235,000 complaints over 5 years equals 47,000 complaints per year, divided by 21 staffers at the ODI (Office of Defects Investigation)  equals over 2,200 complaints per staffer per year.

No wonder far too many ODI "investigations" are little more than calling the auto manufacturer and saying "Hello, we got a complaint.  Please send us any info?" The typical big auto response: "Must be driver error."

Call your congressional representatives and senators!

iPhone 4 a No Go, Says Consumer Reports

Consumers Reports issued a "Not recommended" on Apple's iPhone 4 due to a design defect in the antenna causing poor reception and dropped calls. See report here. The video below explains.

Get your fashionable duct tape here. Oh, and see the post about pundits who are "annoyed" at lawyers who assist ordinary folks who were taken by Apple's less than candid statements. Don't listen to these pundits and their bad legal opinions; they will hurt you, not inform you.

As Consumer Reports stated: "Our findings call into question the recent claim by Apple that the iPhone 4's signal-strength issues were largely an optical illusion caused by faulty software that "mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength."