Phoenix Personal Injury Lawyer - Rants and Raves - Most Popular

Insurance Company Profits to Top Sixty Billion

Staff Writer — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:47:22 GMT

The other day, I discussed the topic of increasing health insurance premiums across the country. I mentioned that perhaps we all should consider investing in health insurance companies because premiums and profits have been rising at a faster rate than claims payouts. Well it turns out that health insurance companies are not the only successful insurance producer. According to the New York Times, overall the insurance industry expects to earn about sixty billion dollars in profit. This comes after the insurance industry earned forty-three billion dollars last year in spite of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

According to the New York Times,

Industry experts are estimating that profits may reach $60 billion, on a combination of higher premiums along the coasts, no major payouts for natural disasters and strong investment returns. The insurers also had high profits on other lines of coverage like auto insurance, workers compensation and general liability.

Have you ever imagined a situation when insurance companies suggest that because they have earned too much profit, they returned money to policyholders? How much profit is enough? I do not believe our government has the right to regulate the extent to which an insurance company can make a profit; however, I also believe that policyholders have the right to demand accountability if a comany ignores its obligation of good faith and fair dealing with policyholders and instead attempts to reward shareholders.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Maricopa County Loses a Fine Judge

Staff Writer — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:53:11 GMT

Today we mourn the loss of a Judge with the Juvenile Division of the Maricopa County Superior Court. Judge John Gaylord was appointed to the Maricopa County Superior Court in 2000 and for the past three years was assigned to the Juvenile Court facility in Mesa. I never had an opportunity to appear in front of Judge Gaylord in the Juvenile Court. However, I know that Judge Gaylord had an outstanding reputation for fairness and compassion. Attorneys I know who appeared in front of him always held a high regard for his professionalism. He also was very active in the community and set a shining example of a model jurist in our state.

Tragically, Judge Gaylord

was killed yesterday evening when his motorcycle was hit by an out-of-control vehicle pulling a trailer.
Judge John M. Gaylord died at the scene of the crash. The Department of Public Safety says his 2005 Harley-Davidson was northbound on State Route 79 outside Florence when the driver of a southbound Land Rover pulling a boat crossed into his lanes.

I am sure that he will be missed by friends, family and colleagues alike and am truly sorry to not have had the privilege of appearing in his court. Maybe Judge Gaylord's tragic passing will reinforce the notion that roadway safety advocates should not ignore motorcyclists. Motorcycle safety has been a controversial topic lately. Notwithstanding this controversy, this topic should not be overlooked on Arizona roadways. Automobiles, trucks and motorcycles all share our state's roads and freeways. In light of so many tragic motorcycle accidents and in spite of the safety controversy, the Department of Transportation, the Governor's Office of Highway Safety, the Federal Highway Administration, other safety organizations and drivers alike must all ensure that drivers look out for motorcycles when driving, and freeway planners must consider motorcycle safety when considering roadway expansion or new construction. Our sincere condolences on the loss of Judge Gaylord. Maybe his high profile passing will help reinforce the importance of motorcycle safety to the driving public and to roadway safety engineers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Should Arizona Reconsider Statutory Immunity for Negligent Freeway Maintenance?

Staff Writer — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:13:36 GMT

A couple of days have passed since the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis which led to the deaths of at least five people. The cause of the bridge collapse on I-35W will not be known for quite some time. However, if the I-35W bridge collapsed due to ordinary wear and tear, such a tragedy may have been avoided had the Minnesota Department of Transportation placed a higher priority on bridge repair rather than continuously deferring needed maintenance. According to MSNBC, in 2005, the bridge had been rated by Federal Government inspectors as a step above "intolerable" needing major safety related reinforcements, upgrades or replacement. In 2005, the bridge had been considered

deemed to have met "minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as it is," according to the federal National Bridge Inventory database of inspection records.

Because it supposedly met minimum tolerable limits, it appears that safety and upgrade funds were not prioritized toward repair or upgrade work on this bridge. Two years later, the bridge collapsed. I guess that sometime after 2005, the bridge stopped meeting "minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as it its." At what point did this tragedy become preventable? What money could have been made available to do repair work on this bridge after Minnesota transportation officials received notice of safety dangers in 2005? If such a tragic event occurred in Arizona, would the State be held accountable for its refusal to make highway repairs right away? The answer to this question depends in large part on a review of statutes granting the state and other governmental entities immunity from suits challenging its policy and resource allocation decisions.

In Arizona, public entities may not be held responsible for negligence involving the exercise of fundamental government policy including:

1. A determination of whether to seek or whether to provide the resources necessary for any of the following:
(a) The purchase of equipment.
(b) The construction or maintenance of facilities.
(c) The hiring of personnel.
(d) The provision of governmental services.

Generally this means that if the Arizona Department of Transportation made a reasoned decision and considered yet rejected allocating resources to fix a bridge problem, the State may not necessarily be held accountable for its negligent decisions not to provide resources for construction or maintenance. However, it seems to me that if decisions not to allocate resources toward a particular safety project violate reasonable and sound engineering principles which later prove dangerously fatal, the State should not be immune from accountability for negligence. If the State contracted with a private company to make engineering resource-allocation decisions and the company acted negligently, it would accountable to the victims of its misplaced decisions. Why then should our State receive immunity for the same wrongdoing? I believe it may be time to re-examine the reasons for the legislative grant of immunity to this public entity. I wonder how quickly Department of Transportation officials would allocate monies to road and bridge repair knowing they would be held accountable for any unreasonable delays.

With current immunity protections in place, the Arizona Department of Transportation in its Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures manual appears to prioritize safety projects by comparing the costs of safety countermeasures to the costs of fatalities, injuries and property damages. It suggests that each person's life should be valued at $3,000,000 and considers safety projects purely mathematically to minimize costs. Based on the agency policy manual, it will not commit to roadway safety countermeasures or modifications unless the costs of all fatalities, serious injuries and vehicle damages exceed the costs of safety improvements. Apparently the Arizona Department of Transportation is willing to accept death and injury on our state's roadways so long as the aggregate costs for deaths, injuries and vehicle property damages do not exceed the costs for bridge repair, installation of guard rails or other safety improvements. Does this mathematical justification for acceptable death and injury sound reasonable? Do you believe the State should place a value on life and only commit to safety projects when the safety project costs less than the total costs of lives for which it values at $3,000,000 per person? Does this economic model exclude social and non-economic costs of death, injury, property loss and disfigurement? What would happen in Arizona if a highway bridge collapsed. Applying the Arizona Department of Transportation economic formula to the bridge collapse tragedy which occurred in Minnesota, if the bridge repair costs exceeded $15,000,000, representing how the department values the loss of life of five people, policy-makers would accept such losses in Arizona. This is true even if decision-makers received notice of structural problems a few years prior.

Perhaps removing immunity protections for the decisions made by our state transportation department officials will ensure that freeway safety maintenance and upkeep projects occur quickly and efficiently and that the costs of safety improvements will not be compared to the cost of human life before considering particular hazard elimination projects.

What do you think? Should the Arizona Department of Transportation continue to receive immunity protection from various lawsuits against it? Are you satisfied with the safety decisions made and roadway projects undertaken by our Arizona Department of Transportation? Should the Department set as a goal the elimination of all hazards on our roadways or are some hazards, deaths and injuries simply acceptable? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Michael Moore's Movie "Sicko" and Its Portrayal of US Healthcare

Staff Writer — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:00:00 GMT

Michael Moore released a new movie about the system of healthcare in the United States. In the movie, he portrays our healthcare system as one in crisis. Do you believe our healthcare system in this country provides the best quality of care to patients at a reasonable cost? Have you seen the movie Sicko? Do you think the movie accurately portrays problems with our healthcare system in America? Do you believe our healthcare system is in a crisis? I have not seen the movie but am interested in hearing from anybody who has.

According to press accounts, Moore presents stories about patients and their problems receiving quality healthcare. He also compares the healthcare system in the United States with systems in other countries and apparently advocates for a universal healthcare system in this country. Moore presents examples of patients who were evicted from their homes because they received costly medical services but could not afford to pay for the care. In another example, Moore presents a patient who, due to the overburdensome cost, had to choose between re-attachment of a severed index or ring finger but not both. In contrast, a Canadian patient using that country's healthcare system would have been able to have all of his severed fingers re-attached at no cost.

I understand that the movie seems to advocate eliminating health insurance companies altogether from our system of healthcare and instead, providing a single payor government run or administered system for everybody. I am not sure our country can look to mandatory government run healthcare as the catchall answer to the complex problems and questions about access to healthcare and quality of service. I always have concerns when people suggest our government can create a new large bureaucratic program and have this program deliver quality services to everybody at low or no cost. Look at the Veterans Administration as an example of how medical care could be administered to patients and taxpayers throughout the country. Can we honestly say that our military veterans who sacrifice so much for this country receive quality healthcare? Based upon recent news accounts about problems at Walter Reed Medical Center and other VA medical facilities across the country, I do not believe that our military veterans receive the highest quality of medical care. If our military veterans do not receive adequate and quality healthcare, how can we believe that our government can successfully administer a healthcare program for everybody? Also, even if our government can successfully create a new bureaucracy to oversee healthcare delivery, what will this program cost? Our budget deficit already requires massive government borrowing which crowds out private sector access to capital. We probably cannot create such a massive bureaucracy without increasing taxes. Perhaps we should consider new taxes or user fees if raising taxes could lead to a reasonable resolution of the problems we see in our healthcare system. I am just not convinced that a new government program is the answer.

Last year, the Massachusetts legislature passed a bill requiring health insurance for all citizens. According to the Washington Post,

The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill . . . that would require all residents to purchase health insurance or face legal penalties, which would make this the first state to tackle the problem of incomplete medical coverage by treating patients the same way it does cars.
Gov. Mitt Romney (R) supports the proposal, which would require all uninsured adults in the state to purchase some kind of insurance policy by July 1, 2007, or face a fine. Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state.

This approach involves providing state subsidies for low income citizens; however, I do not know whether the legislation addresses problems associated with denial of coverage for pre-existing health conditions. The legislation took effect as of July 1 this year and presents one approach to addressing problems with the uninsured. Other health care policy study groups have been evaluating options and will likely present research in response to the Moore movie. Perhaps some of the suggestions in the Massachusetts model, the Rand Project, or other research initiatives can be looked upon and applied nationally if successful.

I commend Michael Moore for drawing our nation's attention to the problem with healthcare in America and plan to see the movie soon. I do not necessarily agree with his apparent suggested solution; however, at least he increased our awareness of healthcare problems. Hopefully policymakers can come up with creative solutions to improve the quality and cost of care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

How Would Tort Reform Affect the Quality of Emergency Healthcare?

Staff Writer — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:00:00 GMT

In 1975, the California State Legislature passed the California Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) which placed a cap on damages for medical malpractice claims. According to this Act, an injured plaintiff cannot recover non-economic losses in excess of $250,000. This tort reform statute has been in effect in California for thirty-two years. Because this California law has been in effect for so long, perhaps we can look to this state to determine whether tort reform has been effective in improving the quality and price of medical care. In general, I believe private market conditions rather than government interference and regulation leads to higher quality and efficiency. This means that I do not believe that artificial caps on damages are effective in improving the quality and cost of medical care.

Today, I came across a shocking news story about the quality of emergency room care in at least one hospital in California. A patient who was bleeding from her mouth and crying out in pain while she was forced to wait more than forty-five minutes in the lobby of the emergency room at Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital died because she did not receive timely emergency care. According to news accounts, family members tried to call 911 to receive timely medical care and transport the patient to another facility. Unfortunately, dispatchers refused to call paramedics after learning about her location. According to news accounts of the breakdown in patient care:

In the recordings of two 911 calls that day, first obtained by the Los Angeles Times under a California Public Records Act request, callers pleaded for help for Rodriguez but were referred to hospital staff instead.
"I'm in the emergency room. My wife is dying and the nurses don't want to help her out," Rodriguez's boyfriend, Jose Prado, is heard saying in Spanish through an interpreter on the tapes.
"What's wrong with her?" a female dispatcher asked.
"She's vomiting blood," Prado said.
"OK, and why aren't they helping her?" the dispatcher asked
'They're just watching her'
"They're watching her there and they're not doing anything. They're just watching her," Prado said.
The dispatcher told Prado to contact a doctor and then said paramedics wouldn't pick her up because she was already in a hospital. She later told him to contact county police officers at a security desk.

The patient died after suffering from a perforated bowel which according to the coroner, could have been surgically repaired if it had been caught in time. Clearly, the emergency medical care provided to this patient fell well below the standard of care required for emergency medical providers. In fact, according to press reports, the hospital had a history of patient safety problems. The federal government previously even warned this hospital about safety problems placing emergency room patients at immediate risk of harm. The hospital risked losing federal funding had it not improved patient safety.

What do caps on damages in medical malpractice litigation have to do with this California hospital? Perhaps nothing. However, I believe that possible litigation damage awards usually play a role in how people manage risks. Because risk management departments evaluate safety based upon exposure to damage awards, damage caps can play a role in the priorities placed on patient safety programs. Perhaps if this hospital placed more emphasis on patient safety, it would have had a more effective patient triage program in place rather than forcing a patient with a perforated bowel to wait in an emergency room lobby until she died.

I must admit that other than what has been reported in news stories, I know nothing about this hospital. However, I firmly believe that risk management departments place an increased emphasis on patient safety when facing an unlimited exposure to litigation risk . As a result, litigation can be an effective tool to promote safety. This hospital never faced a civil judgment beyond exposure to civil damages caps. Because such risks never existed in California, perhaps patients suffer from poor quality of care. Do you believe the hospital has adequate incentive to provide safe patient care? Do you believe that damage caps play a role in the safety decisions corporations and medical providers make? Would damage caps in California work in Arizona? Let me know your thoughts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Has Your Health Insurance Company Treated You Fairly?

Staff Writer — Mon, 07 May 2007 17:00:09 GMT

Today in the Los Angeles Times, I read about the health insurance company Blue Shield of California which has been sued by a policyholder alleging bad faith for refusing to pay medical bills totalling $450,000 arising out of a serious car accident. According the the article, the insureds applied for health insurance, paid premiums and received an individual policy through Blue Shield of California in December, 2000. After receiving the policy and believing they had health insurance coverage, unfortunately the husband suffered serious injuries in a car accident in March, 2001. Blue Shield paid more than $100,000 in medical expense claims relating to this car accident and then decided to re-examine the family's application for health insurance. After re-examining the application, Blue Shield contended that the family mis-stated the husband's weight and other medical conditions and claimed that it would never have issued the health insurance policy had it known of the husband's true weight. As a result of alleged mis-statements, Blue Shield of California denied remaining claims and rescinded the family's health insurance policy. Blue Shield rescinded the family's health insurance policy leaving more than $346,000 in outstanding medical bills and an unpaid debt owing to Blue Shield to reimburse the approximately $104,000 in claims already paid. The family sued Blue Shield alleging that it rescinded the policy for reasons unrelated to the answers on the policy application, instead rescinding when the insureds became unprofitable after the husband's serious auto accident.

In Arizona, an insurer has an obligation to deal with you fairly and in good faith. If you believe you have been victimized by the conduct of an insurance company, you can submit a complaint to the Arizona Department of Insurance who will investigate to determine if it believes any laws have been violated. You may also consider meeting with a private lawyer to assist in determining what private remedies may be available if an insurance company treats you unfairly. Have you had similar experiences with your health insurance carrier? Have you had positive dealings with your insurance carrier? I'd like to hear about your experiences.

If the facts of this case are as indicated in the LA Times article, do you believe Blue Shield acted fairly and in good faith toward its insureds by taking away insurance only after expensive claims had been submitted? Do you believe that Blue Shield of California truly believed that it would not have issued the health insurance policy if the husband's true weight were recorded on the policy application or do you believe the company attempted to rescind the policy simply because the family's claims expenses were so high? What limitations or restrictions, if any, should be placed on a health insurance company such as Blue Shield when it evaluates whether to rescind a health insurance policy? Did the company do anything inappropriate in the method it processed claims for benefits related to this automobile accident? What other information would affect your answers to these questions? Let me know your thoughts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

State Farm Insurance CEO Pay Rises Eighty-Two Percent

Staff Writer — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:00:06 GMT

Congratulations to State Farm Insurance Company! Its profits rose almost sixty-four percent (64%) to $5.32 billion dollars last year from $3.24 billion dollars in 2005. In my opinion, during this time, I do not think that State Farm acted like very much of a good neighbor to victims of Hurricane Katrina or to other policy-holders who timely paid premiums thinking they would be protected in times of calamity. Unfortunately, it appears that when needed most, many insurance policy-holders were denied policy benefits last year. In the midst of its record-setting year, according to a recent story on CNN, State Farm apparently adopted a policy to minimize settlement offers for low-impact motor vehicle collisions forcing accident victims to take substantially low settlement offers or spent significant costs in litigation. Moreover, Katrina victims were forced to sue State Farm for refusing to pay property damage claims. By minimizing payouts to its policy-holders, these steps have maximized State Farm's profitability to record levels.

In the midst of these record-setting profits, State Farm's CEO's salary increased at an even faster pace. The CEO's overall salary increased by eighty-two percent (82%) from $6.4 million dollars in 2005 to $11.66 million dollars in 2006.

State Farm's public relations teams continue to champion tort reform initiatives even during such record setting years of profitability. I believe that State Farm and other companies have every right to make a substantial profit and ordinarily I would applaud these efforts. I do not question State Farm's right to earn $5.32 billion dollars nor do I believe that government should intervene to regulate the insurance industry any further. However, I am curious how State Farm or any other insurance company can earn such large profits on the one hand, and still claim losses based on the lack of tort reform initiatives throughout our country on the other. What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Blue Cross of California Agrees to Settle Rescission Class Action Lawsuit

Staff Writer — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:00:00 GMT

Blue Cross of California recently entered a settlement agreement to resolve a class action lawsuit against the health insurer concerning the nature of its individual health insurance business practices. Blue Cross had been accused of using innocent mistakes on poorly worded insurance applications to rescind policies after insureds submitted costly claims. After concluding that it would lose money based on costly claims, the company allegedly undertook a campaign to find the slightest misrepresentations on the application for insurance and rescind the policy leaving individuals without coverage and with thousands of dollars in unpaid medical claims.

As a condition of the settlement, Blue Cross agreed to modify its health insurance application form to make it more readable and user friendly. Also, Blue Cross agreed to only rescind individual health insurance policies when policy applications contained intentional and wilful lies. In other words, insureds in California who make honest mistakes in an application for health insurance cannot have their policies taken away from them when they submit claims and need insurance the most.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Blue Cross of California agreed to a series of changes in business practices to help the consumer health insurance policy-holders:

The move is part of an effort to settle a class-action lawsuit on behalf of as many as 6,000 people canceled since late 2001. It is an about-face for Blue Cross in what had become known as "use-it-and-lose-it" health coverage because the cancellations were often triggered by patients' claims for treatment.
The insurer's new stance is aimed at ending rescissions based on policyholders' honest mistakes, inadvertent errors and other inconsistencies about their medical histories on applications for coverage. Consumers contend that the forms are purposely confusing, increasing the odds that applicants will make mistakes.
"This is a very significant consumer health victory ... something we believe they should have been following all along," said Cindy Ehnes, director of the state Department of Managed Health Care.
* * * *
"What we have tried to say to the plans is the process that you use to make those determinations is very flawed," Ehnes said. "First you go back way too far in someone's medical history. Most of us can't remember what we ate for dinner last night, much less what the doctor told us 20 years ago."
Among other changes, Blue Cross agreed to consult policyholders about application problems in deciding whether a rescission was justified.

An easier to read application makes it more difficult for an insurance carrier to claim rescission based upon poorly worded ambiguous application questions. Also, requiring the carrier to prove the consumer intentionally lied on the application before rescinding the insurance policy provides the consumer with protection for innocent yet incorrect application responses. Lastly, providing an appeals process after a policy has been taken away provides the consumer with an efficient tool to contest the company's decisions. All of these concessions negotiated in the context of a class action lawsuit against Blue Cross protect individual policy-holders and demonstrate the benefit of that litigation. I congratulate Plaintiffs' attorney William Shernoff, the California state Department of Managed Health Care and Blue Cross of California for their efforts.

I applaud Blue Cross of California's decision to change its conduct and hope that health-insurance companies in Arizona do the same thing. Hopefully Arizona health insurance providers will enact similar measures and abandon efforts to use innocent yet incorrect responses on poorly worded and confusing insurance applications as a basis to take away health insurance policies when consumers need protection the most.

Do you have an individual health insurance policy in Arizona? Have you had similar problems? What do you think about the settlement in California? Do you believe health insurance companies in Arizona should enact the same changes here?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

The Number of Uninsured Continues to Rise

Staff Writer — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:04:40 GMT

According to a recent article in the physician publication American Medical News, the number of Americans without health insurance has increased to forty-seven million people last year. By comparison, approximately thirty-eight million four hundred thousand Americans had no health insurance insurance in 2000. The American Medical News suggests that one of the reasons for such a large increase in the ranks of the uninsured concern employer benefit cutbacks:

"Overall, the picture is one of continual erosion of employer coverage that is now starting to squeeze the middle class," said Karen Davis, PhD, president of the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation dedicated to improving health care. "It's very troubling to see this dramatic increase."

Several reform suggestions advocated by the American Medical Association to use tax credits and vouchers to faciliate the purchase of health insurance sound promising. However, I cannot understand how uninsured or even insured consumers will benefit by other tort reform aspects of the American Medical Association advocacy agenda. I simply fail to see a coorelation between limitations on accountability for medical errors and access to health insurance and quality medical care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Are On-Line Pharmacies Trafficking Narcotic Drugs?

Staff Writer — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:22:14 GMT

Perhaps you have seen stories or received spam e-mail messages from on-line pharmacies offering instant access to prescription drugs at low cost. You want a percocet or vicodin but your family doctor did not prescribe it for you? No worries. Just log onto your spam-friendly Internet pharmacy, fill out a brief questionnaire, pay for your medication with a credit card and in no time, you will receive your narcotics. Recently, according to a story on MSNBC, on-line pharmacies are making millions selling controlled substances.

Without Internet pharmacies, you must visit your doctor in order to receive a prescription for medication. Your doctor issues the prescription to be filled at the pharmacy. At the pharmacy, you can verify the authenticity, purity and dosage. Your pharmacist must also counsel you on the use, dosage, side effects and any other important details of the medication before you take it for the first time. You also have the opportunity to ask questions and you, your doctor and your pharmacist act together as a team to administer your medication safely.

If you order medication on-line, you lose the effectiveness of medication counseling, and in-person consultation with your physician and team approach to medication safety. You lose the opportunity to confirm the dosage and purity of the medication. In short, the safety systems in place to prescribe and administer medication safely are for the most part lost with fly-by-night Internet pharmacies. As MSNBC reports,

The Drug Enforcement Administration, which reported the additional parcel delivery trucks in southeastern Kentucky, says about 95 percent of products sold by online pharmacies are controlled substances. By comparison, controlled substances amount to roughly 11 percent of the dosages dispensed by legitimate pharmacies.

These details suggest that fly-by-night Internet pharmacies are dispensing controlled substances at an alarming rate and the alarming implication suggests that some of these apparent business cover up illicit drug trade. So long as on-line pharmacies dispense medication in a safe and effective manner and supplement regular in-person physician and pharmacist counseling requirements, on-line pharmacies serve a useful purpose. However, based on the DEA statistics, it appears that several rogue pharmacies may be using the Internet to traffic and sell narcotics while attempting to use a designation as a pharmacy to justify illegal drug trafficking.

What do you think about on-line pharmacies? Do they provide a useful service? Or are a large number of them simply a tool to sell illegal substances? If you have had a bad experience with an on-line pharmacy, share your story. Also, you may consider filing a consumer complaint with the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy who will conduct an investigation to determine compliance with Arizona law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer